AI Insights
The case involves a batch of fifteen Civil Writ Petitions filed by various petitioners against the Union of India and others, challenging the application of certain guidelines and notifications issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC) concerning the passing criteria for medical examinations. The petitioners, who had failed in their supplementary examinations, sought the benefit of revised passing criteria introduced by the NMC through guidelines dated 01.08.2023 and a subsequent notification dated 01.09.2023. The main legal contention was whether these guidelines and the notification should be applied retrospectively to alter the results of examinations that had already been conducted. The court examined the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the doctrines of 'stare decisis' and 'lex prospicit non respicit', and concluded that the changes were substantive and could not be applied retrospectively.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695095 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
06-05-2025
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" CWP-24261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Jashandeep Kaur and others Union of India and others CORAM: Present: 24261-2023 and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jashandeep Kaur and others V/s Union of India and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-24261-2023 and CWP Mr. Tej Bahadur, Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-1380-2024. Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-27009-2023 and CWP CWP-31-2024 and CWP-33- Mr. Manbir S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-29553-2023, CWP-1050 Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-25867-2023. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-3931-2025. Mr. Sunil Kumar Rohilla, Advocate and Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-26930-2024. Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional Advocate General Punjab and Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG Punjab. Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI in CWP-24261-2023, CWP-27009 CWP-32-2024, CWP-31-2024, CWP CWP-1050-2024, CWP-1380 CWP-1475-2024 and CWP-25599 Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Senior Panel Counsel UOI in CWP-29553-2023 and CWP Mr. Ravi Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel and 2023 and other connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24261-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.202 ....Petitioners ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s) 2023 and CWP-25599-2023. Mr. Tej Bahadur, Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner(s) 2023 and CWP-27662-2023, CWP-1475-2024, -2024. Manbir S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner(s) 1050-2024. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Advocate and Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional Advocate General Punjab and Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG Punjab. Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI in 27009-2023, CWP-27662-2023, 2024, CWP-33-2024, 1380-2024, CWP-25867-2023, 25599-2023. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Senior Panel Counsel UOI 2023 and CWP-796-2024. Ravi Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel and .2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 2024, Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional Advocate General Punjab and AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 SUMEET GOEL 1. the instant of the facts and rival counsel. 1. Jashandeep Kaur and ors. v/s Union of India and ors. 2023 2. Sherrin Regi Varghese v/s Union of India and others 2024 3. Asher Esli Lal v/s Union of India and others 4. Raj Kanwar Singh v 5. Rajan Singh and another v/s Union of India and others 2023 6. Samridhi Sharma v/s Union of India and others 7. Shaurya Thakur v/s Union of India and others 8. Sumedh Sharma v/s Union of India and others 9. Gurleen Singh v/s Union of India and others 10. Simran Passi v/s Union of India and others 11. Ishwinder Singh Hanjra v/s Union of India and others 12. Lalita Korotana and others v/s Union of India and others 2024 13. Earesh Kumar v/s Union of India and others 14. Abhijeet Singh Beniwal and another v/s Union Of India and others (CWP 24261-2023 and other connected cases Mr. Raywant Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent National Medical Counsel. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. ***** SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE By way of the present common the instant batch of fifteen Civil Writ Petitions of the facts and congruity of legal issues therein rival counsel. The details of these writ petitions read Jashandeep Kaur and ors. v/s Union of India and ors. 2023) Sherrin Regi Varghese v/s Union of India and others 2024) Asher Esli Lal v/s Union of India and others Raj Kanwar Singh v/s Union of India and ors. Rajan Singh and another v/s Union of India and others 2023) Samridhi Sharma v/s Union of India and others Shaurya Thakur v/s Union of India and others Sumedh Sharma v/s Union of India and others Gurleen Singh v/s Union of India and others Simran Passi v/s Union of India and others Ishwinder Singh Hanjra v/s Union of India and others Lalita Korotana and others v/s Union of India and others 2024) Earesh Kumar v/s Union of India and others Abhijeet Singh Beniwal and another v/s Union Of India and others CWP-26930-2024) 2023 and other connected cases 2 Mr. Raywant Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent- Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent- Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. ***** common judgment, we proceed to decide of fifteen Civil Writ Petitions, since there is commonality legal issues therein as conceded by the learned t petitions read, thus: Jashandeep Kaur and ors. v/s Union of India and ors.(CWP-24261 Sherrin Regi Varghese v/s Union of India and others(CWP-1050 Asher Esli Lal v/s Union of India and others(CWP-1380-2024) /s Union of India and ors. (CWP-1475-2024) Rajan Singh and another v/s Union of India and others (CWP-25599 Samridhi Sharma v/s Union of India and others(CWP-25867-2023) Shaurya Thakur v/s Union of India and others(CWP-27009-2023) Sumedh Sharma v/s Union of India and others(CWP-27662-2023) Gurleen Singh v/s Union of India and others(CWP-29553-2023) Simran Passi v/s Union of India and others(CWP-31-2024) Ishwinder Singh Hanjra v/s Union of India and others(CWP-32-2024 Lalita Korotana and others v/s Union of India and others(CWP- Earesh Kumar v/s Union of India and others(CWP-796-2024) Abhijeet Singh Beniwal and another v/s Union Of India and others we proceed to decide since there is commonality as conceded by the learned 24261- 1050- 25599- 2024) -33- Abhijeet Singh Beniwal and another v/s Union Of India and others- AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 15. Mohnish Bhangle v/s Union CWP-24261 and others 2. the Constitution of India guidelines to as ‘NMC guidelines’ as ‘01.09.2023 notification’), 03.10.2023 issued by the notice’), petitioners in terms thereof 3. the writ petition in (i) in the academic session for the year 2021 examination in the respondent No.5 (ii) petitioners failed in their first professional exami (iii) June/July, 2023 wherein the petitioners had appeared. (iv) respondent No.3 24261-2023 and other connected cases Mohnish Bhangle v/s Union of India and others For the cause of convenience, the facts are drawn out from 24261-2023 titled as Jashandeep Kaur and others vs. Union of India and others (hereinafter referred to as the writ petition in hand The writ petition in hand preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in essence, entreats for the guidelines, issued by the National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred NMC’) on 01.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as guidelines’), alongwith notification dated 01.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to 01.09.2023 notification’), and for quashing of the public notice dated 03.10.2023 issued by the NMC (hereinafter referred to as and consequential declaration/modification of the result of the petitioners in terms thereof. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant writ petition in hand is adumbrated, thus: The petitioners had been admitted to in the academic session for the year 2021 examination in the respondent No.5-College. Result thereof was declared on 02.05.2023, wherein the petitioners failed in their first professional exami Subsequently, supplementary examination was held June/July, 2023 wherein the petitioners had appeared. Thereafter, 01.08.2023 guidelines respondent No.3-NMC. 2023 and other connected cases 3 of India and others(CWP-3931-2025) For the cause of convenience, the facts are drawn out from Jashandeep Kaur and others vs. Union of India writ petition in hand). preferred under Articles 226/227 of entreats for the grant of benefit of the issued by the National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred ’) on 01.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘01.08.2023 alongwith notification dated 01.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to quashing of the public notice dated (hereinafter referred to as ‘03.10.2023 public declaration/modification of the result of the essential details, the relevant milieu of the lis thus: The petitioners had been admitted to the MBBS degree course in the academic session for the year 2021-2022, in the first professional College. Result thereof was declared on 02.05.2023, wherein the petitioners failed in their first professional examination. Subsequently, supplementary examination was held June/July, 2023 wherein the petitioners had appeared. 01.08.2023 guidelines came to be issued by For the cause of convenience, the facts are drawn out from Jashandeep Kaur and others vs. Union of India preferred under Articles 226/227 of grant of benefit of the issued by the National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred .2023 alongwith notification dated 01.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to quashing of the public notice dated public declaration/modification of the result of the lis in MBBS degree course, in the first professional Result thereof was declared on 02.05.2023, wherein the Subsequently, supplementary examination was held in came to be issued by AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 (v) examination(s) was declared on 18.08.2023. (vi) relevant whereof reads as under: (vii) NMC, relevant whereof reads as under: (viii) of 01.08.2023 guidelines 24261-2023 and other connected cases The result of the petitioners examination(s) was declared on 18.08.2023. 01.09.2023 notification was issued by respondent No.3 relevant whereof reads as under: “CORRIGENDUM SUBJECT: Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME) Guidelines – National Medical Kindly refer to the communication of even no. dated 01 2023 on the above mentioned subject and to inform that provisions at page 58 of CBME is amended as under: Page 58 of CBME Guidelines Amended page 58 of CBME Guidelines In subjects that have two papers, the learner must secure minimum 50% of marks in aggregate (both papers together) to pass in the said subject. In subjects that have two papers, the learner must secure marks in aggregate (both papers togethe Criteria for passing in a subject: A candidate shall obtain 50% marks in University conducted examination separately in Theory and in Practical (practical includes: practical/clinical and viva voce) in order to be declared as passed in that subject. Criteria for passing candidate shall obtain aggregate and 60:40 (minimum) or 40:60 (minimum) in University conducted examination separately in Theory and in Practical (practical includes: practical/cl voce) in order to be declared as passed in that subject. 03.10.2023 public notice came to be issued by , relevant whereof reads as under: “PUBLIC NOTICE This is in continuation to new Amendment in CBME issued through “Corrigendum” bearing No.F.No.U/14021/8/2023 UGMEB dated 01.09.2023 where a new amendment was introduced to the CBME Guidelines vide page number 2. After thorough consideration of the subject matter, it has been decided that retrospective effect in this connection is not possible. The petitioners sought for the 01.08.2023 guidelines read alongwith 01.09.2023 notification 2023 and other connected cases 4 The result of the petitioners qua the supplementary examination(s) was declared on 18.08.2023. was issued by respondent No.3-NMC CORRIGENDUM Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum National Medical Commission. Kindly refer to the communication of even no. dated 01st August, 2023 on the above mentioned subject and to inform that provisions at page 58 of CBME is amended as under: Amended page 58 of CBME Guidelines In subjects that have two papers, the learner must secure minimum 40% marks in aggregate (both papers together) to pass in the said subject. Criteria for passing in a subject: candidate shall obtain 50% marks in aggregate and 60:40 (minimum) or 40:60 (minimum) in University conducted examination separately in Theory and in Practical (practical includes: practical/clinical and viva voce) in order to be declared as passed in that subject. came to be issued by respondent No.3 PUBLIC NOTICE This is in continuation to new Amendment in CBME Guidelines issued through “Corrigendum” bearing No.F.No.U/14021/8/2023 UGMEB dated 01.09.2023 where a new amendment was introduced to the CBME Guidelines vide page number – 58. After thorough consideration of the subject matter, it has been t retrospective effect in this connection is not possible.” the revision of their result, in terms 01.09.2023 notification, which was entary NMC, Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum August, 2023 on the above mentioned subject and to inform that provisions at page Amended page 58 of CBME Guidelines In subjects that have two papers, the 40% of marks in aggregate (both papers in a subject: A marks in aggregate and 60:40 (minimum) or 40:60 (minimum) in University conducted examination separately in Theory and in Practical (practical inical and viva voce) in order to be declared as passed respondent No.3- Guidelines issued through “Corrigendum” bearing No.F.No.U/14021/8/2023- UGMEB dated 01.09.2023 where a new amendment was introduced to the After thorough consideration of the subject matter, it has been in terms which was AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 not granted and, thus, the petitioners the writ petition in hand (ix) (hereinafter referred to as ’ (x) came up for receiving consideration at the hands of this Court. Rival Submissions 4. the petitioners had appeared in the supplementary examination held in June/July, 2023 and result thereof was declared on 18.08.2023 of 01.09.2023 notification ought to have revised the result o order to buttress his arguments relied upon a judgment passed by High Court on 23.01.2025 Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry vs. Megha Maria Joe and others Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 28.02.2025 passed in WA titled as National Medical Commission vs. Antony 24261-2023 and other connected cases not granted and, thus, the petitioners hae writ petition in hand. On 07.11.2023, this Court had passed the following order (hereinafter referred to as ’07.11.2023 interim order’): “As per office report, service upon respondents No.3 and 5 is still awaited. Let fresh notices to respondents No.3 and 5 be issued for 29.3.2024. In the meantime, as per the result declared on 18.08.2023, the petitioners shall be given benefit of guidelines dated 01.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) read with corrigendum dated 01.09.2023 and be declared pass.” It is in this factual backdrop, that the present writ petition(s) up for receiving consideration at the hands of this Court. ubmissions Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued th the petitioners had appeared in the supplementary examination held in June/July, 2023 and result thereof was declared on 18.08.2023 01.09.2023 notification being retrospective in nature, the respondents ought to have revised the result of the petitioners in consonance therewith. In order to buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment passed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 23.01.2025 passed in WA Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry vs. Megha Maria Joe and others & a judgment of Kerala High Court dated 28.02.2025 passed in WA National Medical Commission vs. Antony 2023 and other connected cases 5 hae approached this Court by way of this Court had passed the following order 07.11.2023 interim order’): As per office report, service upon respondents No.3 and 5 is still Let fresh notices to respondents No.3 and 5 be issued for In the meantime, as per the result declared on 18.08.2023, the petitioners shall be given benefit of guidelines dated 01.08.2023 6) read with corrigendum dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure P It is in this factual backdrop, that the present writ petition(s) up for receiving consideration at the hands of this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued th the petitioners had appeared in the supplementary examination held in June/July, 2023 and result thereof was declared on 18.08.2023, but in view being retrospective in nature, the respondents f the petitioners in consonance therewith. In learned counsel for the petitioners has Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras passed in WA-333-2024 and titled as The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry vs. a judgment of a Divison Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 28.02.2025 passed in WA-403-2025 and National Medical Commission vs. Antony P. Alappat and others oached this Court by way of this Court had passed the following order As per office report, service upon respondents No.3 and 5 is still Let fresh notices to respondents No.3 and 5 be issued for In the meantime, as per the result declared on 18.08.2023, the petitioners shall be given benefit of guidelines dated 01.08.2023 (Annexure P-7) It is in this factual backdrop, that the present writ petition(s) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners had appeared in the supplementary examination held in but in view being retrospective in nature, the respondents f the petitioners in consonance therewith. In learned counsel for the petitioners has Madras The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry vs. a Divison Bench of the and P. Alappat and others: AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 2025: KER: 22334 respondents cannot be permitted to plead that commence 01.09.2023 notification governed by the guidelines has urged that though the petitioners appeared in the question, were declared on 18.08.2023 i.e. after the promulgation of the guidelines of the 01.09.2023 notification relate back to 01.08.2023 i.e. when the and thus the same ought to be given retrospective effect. contended that the settled canons of statutory interpretation which unequivocally provide that a clarificatory any interpretation to the contrary would defeat the very object and purpose of such clarificatory legislation. interpretations are possible, the one which is beneficial to the rights of students/candidates 07.11.2023 01.08.2023 guidelines measure and benefit ought to be made absolute on the ground of eq 24261-2023 and other connected cases 2025: KER: 22334. Learned counsel has further iterated that the respondents cannot be permitted to plead that ced prior to 01.08.2023, therefore, the 01.09.2023 notification could not be applied and the petitioners were to be governed by the guidelines prior thereto has urged that though the petitioners appeared in the , prior to the promulgation of 01.08.2023 were declared on 18.08.2023 i.e. after the promulgation of the guidelines & hence they ought to be accorded its benefit. Further, 01.09.2023 notification being solely relate back to 01.08.2023 i.e. when the the same ought to be given retrospective effect. contended that the 03.10.2023 public notice anons of statutory interpretation which unequivocally provide that a clarificatory notification is to be construed as operating retrospectively ny interpretation to the contrary would defeat the very object and purpose of such clarificatory legislation. Learned counsel has further interpretations are possible, the one which is beneficial to the rights of /candidates ought to be adopted. Learned counsel has further submitted, by placing reliance upon 07.11.2023 interim order, that the petitioners were afforded the benefit of 01.08.2023 guidelines read with 01.09.2023 measure and considerable time having elapsed since then, the said interim benefit ought to be made absolute on the ground of eq 2023 and other connected cases 6 . Learned counsel has further iterated that the respondents cannot be permitted to plead that, since the examination had therefore, the 01.08.2023 guidelines and could not be applied and the petitioners were to be prior thereto. In other words, learned counsel has urged that though the petitioners appeared in the examination in 01.08.2023 guidelines, but their result were declared on 18.08.2023 i.e. after the promulgation of the 01.08.2023 hence they ought to be accorded its benefit. Further, by virtue solely clarificatory in nature, it would relate back to 01.08.2023 i.e. when the 01.08.2023 guidelines were issued the same ought to be given retrospective effect. It has been further 03.10.2023 public notice is in direct contravention of the anons of statutory interpretation which unequivocally provide that a is to be construed as operating retrospectively ny interpretation to the contrary would defeat the very object and purpose Learned counsel has further implored that, when two interpretations are possible, the one which is beneficial to the rights of Learned counsel has further submitted, by placing reliance upon that the petitioners were afforded the benefit of 01.09.2023 notification as an interim elapsed since then, the said interim benefit ought to be made absolute on the ground of equity alone. . Learned counsel has further iterated that the since the examination had and could not be applied and the petitioners were to be . In other words, learned counsel examination in but their results 01.08.2023 by virtue it would were issued It has been further is in direct contravention of the anons of statutory interpretation which unequivocally provide that a is to be construed as operating retrospectively & ny interpretation to the contrary would defeat the very object and purpose when two interpretations are possible, the one which is beneficial to the rights of Learned counsel has further submitted, by placing reliance upon that the petitioners were afforded the benefit of as an interim elapsed since then, the said interim AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 in hand is vociferously entreated for. 5. No.1-UOI caused appearance through counsel but no reply furnished. Punjab. 5.1. raising submission in tandem with the reply filed by since the supplemental examinations are continuation of the professional examination methodology for the main examination and supplemental examination hence the petitioners It has been further iterated that the result of the petitioners came to be declared on 18.08.2023 and thus they cannot be extended the benefit of 01.09.2023 notification 01.09.2023 notifica clarificatory in essence and hence nature. In any case, it has been notice that retrospective in nature. Learned counsel has further examination in question high requisite standards are required to be 5.2. University of Health Sciences, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply and the additional affidavit submitted on its behalf, has argued that the 24261-2023 and other connected cases On the strength of these submissions, in hand is vociferously entreated for. Upon notice of motion having been issued, UOI caused appearance through counsel but no reply furnished. Similar is the situation in respect of respondent No.2 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 raising submission in tandem with the reply filed by he supplemental examinations are continuation of the professional examinations, as such there cannot be two sets of evaluation methodology for the main examination and supplemental examination hence the petitioners are not eligible for lowered It has been further iterated that the result of the petitioners came to be declared on 18.08.2023 and thus they cannot be extended the benefit of 01.09.2023 notification. Learned counsel has further urged that the 01.09.2023 notification, by its intrinsic clarificatory in essence and hence it cannot be said to be retrospective in n any case, it has been expressly that the 01.09.2023 notification retrospective in nature. Learned counsel has further examination in question pertains to the MBBS degree course and thus, the high requisite standards are required to be Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 University of Health Sciences, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply and the additional affidavit submitted on its behalf, has argued that the 2023 and other connected cases 7 strength of these submissions, the grant of writ petition Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondent UOI caused appearance through counsel but no reply has been Similar is the situation in respect of respondent No.2-State of Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-NMC, while raising submission in tandem with the reply filed by NMC, has urged that he supplemental examinations are continuation of the main as such there cannot be two sets of evaluation methodology for the main examination and supplemental examination not eligible for lowered/modified passing standards. It has been further iterated that the result of the petitioners came to be declared on 18.08.2023 and thus they cannot be extended the benefit of . Learned counsel has further urged that the intrinsic nature itself, reflects that it is not cannot be said to be retrospective in expressly clarified by 03.10.2023 public 01.09.2023 notification cannot be construed to be retrospective in nature. Learned counsel has further iterated that the MBBS degree course and thus, the high requisite standards are required to be scrupulously maintained therein. d counsel appearing for respondent No.4-Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply and the additional affidavit submitted on its behalf, has argued that the grant of writ petition the respondent has been State of , while , has urged that main as such there cannot be two sets of evaluation methodology for the main examination and supplemental examination & passing standards. It has been further iterated that the result of the petitioners came to be declared on 18.08.2023 and thus they cannot be extended the benefit of . Learned counsel has further urged that the that it is not cannot be said to be retrospective in public ot be construed to be that the MBBS degree course and thus, the maintained therein. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply and the additional affidavit submitted on its behalf, has argued that the AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 result of the first professional supplementary ba declared on notification Placing reliance on dispute(s) regarding applicability of rest as the same has been 5.3. College despite service. petition in hand represented respondents. 6. perused the record. Prime Issue 7. petitioners ought to be afforded the benefit of with 01.09.2023 the 01.09.2023 no clarificatory in nature so as to enable all concerned to apply it in retrospective mode, especially in view of the by respondent No. Analysis 8. behalf of the represented respondents. 24261-2023 and other connected cases result of the first professional supplementary ba declared on 18.08.2023 i.e. much before the issuance of the notification and thus no benefit thereof can be extended to the petitioners. Placing reliance on 03.10.2023 public notice dispute(s) regarding applicability of 01.09.2023 notification rest as the same has been clarified to be prospective in nature. None has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.5 despite service. On the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the petition in hand is canvassed for by the learned counsel appearing for the represented respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record. Prime Issue The prime issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners ought to be afforded the benefit of 01.09.2023 notification. The analogous issue which arises for cogitation is as to whether 01.09.2023 notification is required to be considered to be merely clarificatory in nature so as to enable all concerned to apply it in retrospective mode, especially in view of the by respondent No.3-NMC. Analysis We now proceed to dilate on the rival submissions made on behalf of the represented respondents. 2023 and other connected cases 8 result of the first professional supplementary batch 2021 examination was 18.08.2023 i.e. much before the issuance of the 01.09.2023 and thus no benefit thereof can be extended to the petitioners. public notice, it has been urged that any 01.09.2023 notification has been put to to be prospective in nature. None has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.5 gth of these submissions, the dismissal of the writ is canvassed for by the learned counsel appearing for the We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners ought to be afforded the benefit of 01.08.2023 guidelines read arises for cogitation is as to whether is required to be considered to be merely clarificatory in nature so as to enable all concerned to apply it in retrospective mode, especially in view of the 03.10.2023 public notice issued We now proceed to dilate on the rival submissions made on tch 2021 examination was 01.09.2023 and thus no benefit thereof can be extended to the petitioners. that any has been put to None has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.5- writ is canvassed for by the learned counsel appearing for the We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have that arises for consideration is as to whether the read arises for cogitation is as to whether is required to be considered to be merely clarificatory in nature so as to enable all concerned to apply it in a issued We now proceed to dilate on the rival submissions made on AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 Re: 9. applicability of be apposite to refer herein to the case la (i) titled as Arjan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 1970 AIR Supreme Court 703, (ii) of Commissioner of Income Ltd. etc. 1997(5) SCC 482 (iii) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Township Private Limited, 2015(1) SCC 1, 24261-2023 and other connected cases Whether 01.09.2023 notification is required to be applied retrospectively or prospectively i.e. whether the changes 01.09.2023 notification would be onwards or from 01.09.2023 onwards only. The pivotal point involved in the applicability of 01.09.2023 notification. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer herein to the case law germane to this issue A Four Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Arjan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 1970 AIR Supreme Court 703, has held thus: “3. It is a well settled rule of construction that no pr should be given retrospective effect unless the legislature by express terms or by necessary implication has made it retrospective and that where a provision is made retrospective care should be taken not to extend its retrospective effect beyond what was intended. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay etc. vs. M/s Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. etc. 1997(5) SCC 482 has held as under “45. In our view, the circumstances under brought into existence and the consequences of the amendments will have a greater bearing in deciding the issue placed before us. In other words, if after discussion we come to a conclusion that the amendment was clarificatory/declaratory in nature and, therefore, it will have retrospective effect then it will set at rest the controversy finally. A Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) ip Private Limited, 2015(1) SCC 1, “32. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectively is the principle of 'fairness’, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was 2023 and other connected cases 9 Whether 01.09.2023 notification is required to be applied retrospectively or prospectively i.e. whether the changes 01.09.2023 notification would be applicable from 01.08.2023 onwards or from 01.09.2023 onwards only. The pivotal point involved in the lis in hand is the date of Before proceeding further, it would w germane to this issue: Four Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Arjan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 1970 AIR rule of construction that no provision in a statute should be given retrospective effect unless the legislature by express terms or by necessary implication has made it retrospective and that where a provision is made retrospective care should be taken not to extend its fect beyond what was intended.” Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case tax, Bombay etc. vs. M/s Podar Cement Pvt. as under: In our view, the circumstances under which the amendment was brought into existence and the consequences of the amendments will have a greater bearing in deciding the issue placed before us. In other words, if after discussion we come to a conclusion that the amendment was aratory in nature and, therefore, it will have retrospective effect then it will set at rest the controversy finally.” Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi vs. Vatika ip Private Limited, 2015(1) SCC 1, has held as under: The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectively is the principle of 'fairness’, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was Whether 01.09.2023 notification is required to be applied retrospectively or prospectively i.e. whether the changes in applicable from 01.08.2023 in hand is the date of Before proceeding further, it would Four Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Arjan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 1970 AIR ovision in a statute should be given retrospective effect unless the legislature by express terms or by necessary implication has made it retrospective and that where a provision is made retrospective care should be taken not to extend its Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case tax, Bombay etc. vs. M/s Podar Cement Pvt. which the amendment was brought into existence and the consequences of the amendments will have a greater bearing in deciding the issue placed before us. In other words, if after discussion we come to a conclusion that the amendment was aratory in nature and, therefore, it will have Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case I, New Delhi vs. Vatika The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectively is the principle of 'fairness’, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 (iv) Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and others vs. Dr. Manu and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640, 24261-2023 and other connected cases observed in the decision reported in Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co.Ltd legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on th because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later. 33. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. Indian Tobacco Association,(2005) 7 SCC 396 was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and others vs. Dr. Manu and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640, has held thus: “45. It is trite that any legislation or instrument having the force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an obvious omission in a statute, would 2023 and other connected cases 10 observed in the decision reported in L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Shinnihon Steamship Co.Ltd, (1994) 1 AC 486. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as e intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India & Ors. v. (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 286. was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be ctive in nature. However, we are confronted with any such e Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and others vs. Dr. Manu and has held thus: It is trite that any legislation or instrument having the force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an obvious omission in a statute, would en des Phosphates v. . Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as e intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. e subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat rs. v. rness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied . (2006) 6 SCC 286. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be ctive in nature. However, we are confronted with any such Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and others vs. Dr. Manu and It is trite that any legislation or instrument having the force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an obvious omission in a statute, would AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 9.1. with approval by case titled as 1960 AIR Supreme Court 12 24261-2023 and other connected cases generally be retrospective in operation, Therefore, in order to determine whether the Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 may be made applicable retrospectively, it is necessary to consider whether the said order was a clarification or a substantive amendment. xxx xxx xxx xxx 52. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be culled out: i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted. ii) In order for a subsequent order/provision/amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively. iii) An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision. iv) Merely because a provision is described as a clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively. Craies on Statute Law, Fifth Edition, pp.56 with approval by a Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Central Bank of India and others vs. Their Workmen, etc., 1960 AIR Supreme Court 12, iterates as under: “For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to s 2023 and other connected cases 11 generally be retrospective in operation, vide Ramesh Prasad Verma. Therefore, in order to determine whether the Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 may be made applicable retrospectively, it is necessary to consider whether the said order was a clarification or a substantive xxx xxx xxx xxx From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted. rder for a subsequent order/provision/amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore iii) An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope because a provision is described as a clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality aratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively.” , Fifth Edition, pp.56-57), which has met Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Central Bank of India and others vs. Their Workmen, etc., iterates as under: For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament vide Ramesh Prasad Verma. Therefore, in order to determine whether the Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 may be made applicable retrospectively, it is necessary to consider whether the said order was a clarification or a substantive From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous rder for a subsequent order/provision/amendment to be amended ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore iii) An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope because a provision is described as a clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality aratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and 57), which has met Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Central Bank of India and others vs. Their Workmen, etc., For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual et aside what Parliament AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 Singh in the published by with the approval from the Hon’ble Supre Township 9.2. the longstanding jurisprudence, is that a statute — is operational and applies provides for necessarily inferred by interpretation, sanctified by time and judicial pronouncements, that statutes which create new substantive rights or extinguish existing substantive rights are presumed to can only be justified if the language employed by the legislature unequivocally this venerable rule is that the present conduct of individuals ought to be governed by the legal norms retroactively impinge upon framework. Every person is presumed or her affairs the settled expectations confounded by retrospective alterations of the law. 24261-2023 and other connected cases deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word “declared” as well as the word ‘enacted’”. To similar effect is the enunciation explained by Justice G.P. Singh in the Principles of Statutory Interpretations, 13 published by Lexis Nexis Buttersworths Wadhwa, Nagpur with the approval from the Hon’ble Supre Township (supra). The general principle of law longstanding jurisprudence, is that a statute is operational and applies prospectively provides for a retrospective application necessarily inferred by an inevitable implication. It is a well interpretation, sanctified by time and judicial pronouncements, that statutes which create new substantive rights or extinguish existing substantive rights are presumed to be operational prospectively. can only be justified if the language employed by the legislature unequivocally, mandates such an application. The rationale underpinning this venerable rule is that the present conduct of individuals ought to be governed by the legal norms, currently in force retroactively impinge upon the activities completed under an earlier legal framework. Every person is presumed to be or her affairs, in reliance upon the extant legal regime settled expectations confounded by retrospective alterations of the law. 2023 and other connected cases 12 deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word “declared” as well as To similar effect is the enunciation explained by Justice G.P. Principles of Statutory Interpretations, 13th Edition 2012 Lexis Nexis Buttersworths Wadhwa, Nagpur which has met with the approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika The general principle of law which emerges herein, fortified by longstanding jurisprudence, is that a statute — or any amendment thereto prospectively, unless the statute explicitly retrospective application, or such an intention can be inevitable implication. It is a well-settled canon of interpretation, sanctified by time and judicial pronouncements, that statutes which create new substantive rights or extinguish existing substantive rights prospectively. Their retrospective operation can only be justified if the language employed by the legislature, clearly and application. The rationale underpinning this venerable rule is that the present conduct of individuals ought to be currently in force; and the law should not activities completed under an earlier legal to be entitled to order and regulate his the extant legal regime, and should not find settled expectations confounded by retrospective alterations of the law. deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word “declared” as well as To similar effect is the enunciation explained by Justice G.P. Edition 2012 which has met Vatika , fortified by or any amendment thereto te explicitly intention can be settled canon of interpretation, sanctified by time and judicial pronouncements, that statutes which create new substantive rights or extinguish existing substantive rights Their retrospective operation clearly and application. The rationale underpinning this venerable rule is that the present conduct of individuals ought to be and the law should not activities completed under an earlier legal entitled to order and regulate his and should not find settled expectations confounded by retrospective alterations of the law. AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 The legal maxim backward notification or circular expressly or by necessary intendment declares its retrospective application, the courts ought not to infer such an operation. The golden rule of interpretation mandate discerned from the words used, according to their plain, ordinary, and grammatical meaning. Moreover, the context and circumstances surrounding the promulgation of the statute, together with the legal consequences flow therefrom, must be accorded significant change in a statute/rule should be construed as operating retrospectively. An exception to this general presumption amendments subsequent enactment merely clarifies the law been understood, without effecting a substantive change, such may, by its very character, be applied retrospective demonstrably clear that the intent of the legislature was to resolve ambiguities or doubts in the antecedent law, rather than to promulgate an entirely new regime. statutory enactments and amendments, the principles enunciated therein are equally applicable, possessing the force of law, issued by statutory authorities, including the NMC. 24261-2023 and other connected cases The legal maxim lex prospicit non respicit backward — eloquently encapsulates this foundational principl Ergo, it must be regarded as a cardinal rule that unless a notification or circular expressly or by necessary intendment declares its retrospective application, the courts ought not to infer such an operation. The golden rule of interpretation mandates that the legislative intent must be discerned from the words used, according to their plain, ordinary, and grammatical meaning. Moreover, the context and circumstances surrounding the promulgation of the statute, together with the legal consequences flow therefrom, must be accorded significant weightage change in a statute/rule should be construed as operating retrospectively. An exception to this general presumption promulgates amendments which are purely declaratory or clarificatory in nature. Where a subsequent enactment merely clarifies the law been understood, without effecting a substantive change, such may, by its very character, be applied retrospective demonstrably clear that the intent of the legislature was to resolve ambiguities or doubts in the antecedent law, rather than to promulgate an entirely new regime. Although the above ratio decidendi pertains primarily to y enactments and amendments, the principles enunciated therein are equally applicable, mutatis mutandis, to notifications, circulars, or directives possessing the force of law, issued by statutory authorities, including the 2023 and other connected cases 13 lex prospicit non respicit — the law looks forward, not eloquently encapsulates this foundational principle. , it must be regarded as a cardinal rule that unless a notification or circular expressly or by necessary intendment declares its retrospective application, the courts ought not to infer such an operation. The s that the legislative intent must be discerned from the words used, according to their plain, ordinary, and grammatical meaning. Moreover, the context and circumstances surrounding the promulgation of the statute, together with the legal consequences flow weightage in determining whether a change in a statute/rule should be construed as operating retrospectively. An promulgates in the case of statutes or urely declaratory or clarificatory in nature. Where a subsequent enactment merely clarifies the law, as it always ought to have been understood, without effecting a substantive change, such a legislation may, by its very character, be applied retrospectively. However, it must be demonstrably clear that the intent of the legislature was to resolve ambiguities or doubts in the antecedent law, rather than to promulgate an Although the above ratio decidendi pertains primarily to y enactments and amendments, the principles enunciated therein are , to notifications, circulars, or directives possessing the force of law, issued by statutory authorities, including the the law looks forward, not , it must be regarded as a cardinal rule that unless a notification or circular expressly or by necessary intendment declares its retrospective application, the courts ought not to infer such an operation. The s that the legislative intent must be discerned from the words used, according to their plain, ordinary, and grammatical meaning. Moreover, the context and circumstances surrounding the promulgation of the statute, together with the legal consequences flowing in determining whether a change in a statute/rule should be construed as operating retrospectively. An in the case of statutes or urely declaratory or clarificatory in nature. Where a as it always ought to have legislation ly. However, it must be demonstrably clear that the intent of the legislature was to resolve ambiguities or doubts in the antecedent law, rather than to promulgate an Although the above ratio decidendi pertains primarily to y enactments and amendments, the principles enunciated therein are , to notifications, circulars, or directives possessing the force of law, issued by statutory authorities, including the AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 9.3. 01.08.2023 guidelines governing the standards of assessment and the procedure for evaluation, thereby effectuating a substantive departure from the pre The 01.08.2023 guidelines, obligations cannot implication Clause 3 of come into force with effect from 1 intention of the promulgating authority manifestly clear & beyond cavil. Furthermore, t guidance as to whether it would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The title of 01.09.2023 notification thereof informs that the relevant provision contained at page No.58 of 01.08.2023 guidelines 01.09.2023 notification namely reducing the passing marks from 50% to 40%. This is substantial change in the 01.09.2023 thereby, merely clarificatory in nature. Rather, it effects a fundamental and material departure from the remove ambiguities inherent in earlier notification; instead it establishe & distinct passing marks standard, thereby altering the substantive rights obligations contemplated under the 24261-2023 and other connected cases Reverting to the factual matrix of the 01.08.2023 guidelines introduce an entirely new regulatory framework governing the standards of assessment and the procedure for evaluation, thereby effectuating a substantive departure from the pre 01.08.2023 guidelines, being constitutive of substantive rights of obligations cannot –– absent an express provision or an necessary implication –– be construed as having retrospective operation. Furthermore, Clause 3 of 01.08.2023 guidelines unequivocally stipulates that they shall come into force with effect from 1st August, 2023, thereby rendering the intention of the promulgating authority manifestly clear & beyond cavil. Furthermore, the 01.09.2023 notification guidance as to whether it would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The 01.09.2023 notification describes it as “ thereof informs that the relevant provision contained at page No.58 of 01.08.2023 guidelines is “Amended”. Further, an analytical perusal of 01.09.2023 notification, reflects that it does bring in a substantial change namely reducing the passing marks from 50% to 40%. This is substantial change in the 01.08.2023 guidelines 01.09.2023 notification, as well as the substantive alteration thereby, incontestably indicates that the merely clarificatory in nature. Rather, it effects a fundamental and material departure from the 01.08.2023 guidelines. remove ambiguities inherent in earlier notification; instead it establishe & distinct passing marks standard, thereby altering the substantive rights obligations contemplated under the 01.08.2 2023 and other connected cases 14 tual matrix of the writ petition in hand; introduce an entirely new regulatory framework governing the standards of assessment and the procedure for evaluation, thereby effectuating a substantive departure from the pre-existing regime. being constitutive of substantive rights of absent an express provision or an necessary be construed as having retrospective operation. Furthermore, unequivocally stipulates that they shall August, 2023, thereby rendering the intention of the promulgating authority manifestly clear & beyond cavil. 01.09.2023 notification does not expressly provide any guidance as to whether it would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The describes it as “Corrigendum” but body thereof informs that the relevant provision contained at page No.58 of ”. Further, an analytical perusal of reflects that it does bring in a substantial change namely reducing the passing marks from 50% to 40%. This is indubitably 01.08.2023 guidelines. The language employed in , as well as the substantive alteration(s) introduced that the 01.09.2023 notification is not merely clarificatory in nature. Rather, it effects a fundamental and material 01.08.2023 guidelines. It does not purport to elucidate or remove ambiguities inherent in earlier notification; instead it establishes new & distinct passing marks standard, thereby altering the substantive rights 01.08.2023 guidelines. Still further; the ; the introduce an entirely new regulatory framework governing the standards of assessment and the procedure for evaluation, gime. being constitutive of substantive rights of absent an express provision or an necessary be construed as having retrospective operation. Furthermore, unequivocally stipulates that they shall August, 2023, thereby rendering the intention of the promulgating authority manifestly clear & beyond cavil. any guidance as to whether it would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The but body thereof informs that the relevant provision contained at page No.58 of ”. Further, an analytical perusal of reflects that it does bring in a substantial change indubitably a loyed in introduced is not merely clarificatory in nature. Rather, it effects a fundamental and material It does not purport to elucidate or new & distinct passing marks standard, thereby altering the substantive rights further; the AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 gap, if any, stands been specifically notified by notification for passing & the process of evaluation is inextricably linked to the date on which the examination is held. In the absence of an express and unambiguous direction by the duly empowered authority entrusted with the conduct of such minimum qualifying marks or in evaluative methodology imposed retrospectively. The rights and liabilities of a candidate must be determined in accordance with the rules and criteria in examination is undertaken, to do otherwise would not only offend principles of fairness & legal certainty but would also impermissibly impair vested rights. It is thus indubitable that 01.09.2023 notification applied retrospectively i.e. to the exams conducted prior thereto, irrespective of the date of declaration of results. 9.4. hand which requires to be delved into academic jurisprudence that supplementary examinations do not constitute a distinct or autonomous evaluative exercise, but rather operate as an ancillary or continuative com essence and effect ought to be governed by the same corpus of procedural norms, regulatory mandates, and evaluative standards 24261-2023 and other connected cases gap, if any, stands foreclosed by 03.10.2023 been specifically notified by NMC that retrospective effect of notification is not possible. The accrual of the cause of action in r for passing & the process of evaluation is inextricably linked to the date on which the examination is held. In the absence of an express and unambiguous direction by the duly empowered authority entrusted with the conduct of such examination, any subsequent alteration minimum qualifying marks or in evaluative methodology imposed retrospectively. The rights and liabilities of a candidate must be determined in accordance with the rules and criteria in examination is undertaken, to do otherwise would not only offend principles of fairness & legal certainty but would also impermissibly impair vested rights. It is thus indubitable that 01.08.2023 guidelines 01.09.2023 notification must not, by any stretch of legal imagination, be applied retrospectively i.e. to the exams conducted prior thereto, irrespective of the date of declaration of results. There is yet another aspect which requires to be delved into. academic jurisprudence that supplementary examinations do not constitute a distinct or autonomous evaluative exercise, but rather operate as an ancillary or continuative component of the principal examination cycle. They are, in essence and effect, an extension of the main examination, and therefore, ought to be governed by the same corpus of procedural norms, regulatory mandates, and evaluative standards –– 2023 and other connected cases 15 03.10.2023 public notice wherein it has that retrospective effect of 01.09.2023 The accrual of the cause of action in relation to the standards for passing & the process of evaluation is inextricably linked to the date on which the examination is held. In the absence of an express and unambiguous direction by the duly empowered authority entrusted with the examination, any subsequent alteration –– whether in the minimum qualifying marks or in evaluative methodology –– cannot be imposed retrospectively. The rights and liabilities of a candidate must be determined in accordance with the rules and criteria in force at the time the examination is undertaken, to do otherwise would not only offend principles of fairness & legal certainty but would also impermissibly impair vested 01.08.2023 guidelines as well as must not, by any stretch of legal imagination, be applied retrospectively i.e. to the exams conducted prior thereto, irrespective There is yet another aspect nay pertinent aspect of the lis It is a well-settled proposition in academic jurisprudence that supplementary examinations do not constitute a distinct or autonomous evaluative exercise, but rather operate as an ancillary ponent of the principal examination cycle. They are, in , an extension of the main examination, and therefore, ought to be governed by the same corpus of procedural norms, regulatory including, but not limited to, the wherein it has 01.09.2023 elation to the standards for passing & the process of evaluation is inextricably linked to the date on which the examination is held. In the absence of an express and unambiguous direction by the duly empowered authority entrusted with the whether in the cannot be imposed retrospectively. The rights and liabilities of a candidate must be force at the time the examination is undertaken, to do otherwise would not only offend principles of fairness & legal certainty but would also impermissibly impair vested as well as must not, by any stretch of legal imagination, be applied retrospectively i.e. to the exams conducted prior thereto, irrespective lis in settled proposition in academic jurisprudence that supplementary examinations do not constitute a distinct or autonomous evaluative exercise, but rather operate as an ancillary ponent of the principal examination cycle. They are, in , an extension of the main examination, and therefore, ought to be governed by the same corpus of procedural norms, regulatory ot limited to, the AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 prescribed syllabus, minimum qualifying thresholds, and eligibility criteria. Absent an express and unequivocal departure articulated by the competent statutory authority vested with the regulatory oversight of such examinations, any at supplementary assessment would be legally untenable and jurisprudentially unsound. To hold otherwise would not only violate the principles of uniformity and parity in academic assessment but would also en and manifest prejudice to candidates belonging to the same academic cohort who had successfully cleared the main examination under the extant norms. the principles of 01.08.2023 guidelines untenable. jurisprudence, cannot be indiscriminately transposed to the context of professional academic qualifications, especially one as sensitive and paramount as the MBBS course, which directly involves public health and safety. The statutory competence and domain expertise, has contrary to the petitioners’ plea(s). This considered position of the expert body must be accorded due deference, lest the judicial process inadvertently substitute its own judgment for that of the specialized authority in mat demanding technical proficiency and sectoral oversight. 01.08.2023 guidelines 24261-2023 and other connected cases prescribed syllabus, minimum qualifying thresholds, and eligibility criteria. Absent an express and unequivocal departure articulated by the competent statutory authority vested with the regulatory oversight of such examinations, any attempt to apply a divergent set of standards to the supplementary assessment would be legally untenable and jurisprudentially unsound. To hold otherwise would not only violate the principles of uniformity and parity in academic assessment but would also en and manifest prejudice to candidates belonging to the same academic cohort who had successfully cleared the main examination under the extant norms. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners, invoking the principles of lex mitior or the Rule of Lenity 01.08.2023 guidelines along with 01.09.2023 notification, untenable. The said doctrine, though recognized in penal/criminal jurisprudence, cannot be indiscriminately transposed to the context of professional academic qualifications, especially one as sensitive and paramount as the MBBS course, which directly involves public health and safety. The NMC, being the designated regulatory body vested with statutory competence and domain expertise, has contrary to the petitioners’ plea(s). This considered position of the expert body must be accorded due deference, lest the judicial process inadvertently substitute its own judgment for that of the specialized authority in mat demanding technical proficiency and sectoral oversight. Ergo, the petitioners cannot be extended the benefit of 01.08.2023 guidelines read with 01.09.2023 notification. 2023 and other connected cases 16 prescribed syllabus, minimum qualifying thresholds, and eligibility criteria. Absent an express and unequivocal departure articulated by the competent statutory authority vested with the regulatory oversight of such tempt to apply a divergent set of standards to the supplementary assessment would be legally untenable and jurisprudentially unsound. To hold otherwise would not only violate the principles of uniformity and parity in academic assessment but would also engender grave and manifest prejudice to candidates belonging to the same academic cohort who had successfully cleared the main examination under the extant norms. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners, invoking Rule of Lenity to seek the benefit of the 01.09.2023 notification, is equally The said doctrine, though recognized in penal/criminal jurisprudence, cannot be indiscriminately transposed to the context of professional academic qualifications, especially one as sensitive and paramount as the MBBS course, which directly involves public health and being the designated regulatory body vested with statutory competence and domain expertise, has consciously taken a position contrary to the petitioners’ plea(s). This considered position of the expert body must be accorded due deference, lest the judicial process inadvertently substitute its own judgment for that of the specialized authority in matters demanding technical proficiency and sectoral oversight. the petitioners cannot be extended the benefit of 01.09.2023 notification. prescribed syllabus, minimum qualifying thresholds, and eligibility criteria. Absent an express and unequivocal departure articulated by the competent statutory authority vested with the regulatory oversight of such tempt to apply a divergent set of standards to the supplementary assessment would be legally untenable and jurisprudentially unsound. To hold otherwise would not only violate the principles of gender grave and manifest prejudice to candidates belonging to the same academic cohort who had successfully cleared the main examination under the extant norms. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners, invoking to seek the benefit of the is equally The said doctrine, though recognized in penal/criminal jurisprudence, cannot be indiscriminately transposed to the context of professional academic qualifications, especially one as sensitive and paramount as the MBBS course, which directly involves public health and being the designated regulatory body vested with consciously taken a position contrary to the petitioners’ plea(s). This considered position of the expert body must be accorded due deference, lest the judicial process inadvertently ters the petitioners cannot be extended the benefit of AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 Re: 10. the petitioners guidelines passed thereafter, the said interim order deserves to be made absolute in exercise of equitable jurisdiction of this Court. germane to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in the case titled as Gurpreet Singh vs. Guru RavidasAyurved University, VPO Kharkan, Una Road, District Hoshiarpur and another : Neutral Citatio 2025:PHHC:039199 24261-2023 and other connected cases Whether; 07.11.2023 interim order passed by this Court granting interim relief to the petitioners, efflux of some having passed since then and the petitioners being students; causes equity in favour of the petitioners. The crux of this aspect of the matter, as the petitioners, is that they were afforded interim benefit of the guidelines read with 01.09.2023 notification passed thereafter, the said interim order deserves to be made absolute in exercise of equitable jurisdiction of this Court. Before delving into this aspect of the matter it would be to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in the case titled Gurpreet Singh vs. Guru RavidasAyurved University, VPO Kharkan, Una Road, District Hoshiarpur and another : Neutral Citatio 2025:PHHC:039199-DB, relevant whereof reads as under: “It is an immutable and sacrosanct obligation of a writ justice in accordance with the exalted principles of justice and equity. However, the invocation of not confer upon the Court an unfettered complete defiance or in oblivion of the land. The administration of equity contours of jurisprudence and cannot adventurism, whereby reliefs, alien to the fundamental precepts of law, are granted without legal substratum. Equity, in its true essence, does not entail bestowing that which the law does not co envisage the conferment of benefits that stand in stark contradiction to statutory mandates. The writ Court, whilst exercising its plenary powers inequity, is vested with the authority to bridge the lacunae that may within the rigid framework of statutory provisions. However, course of action must be undertaken with due reverence to legal order, lest it results in judicial encroachment tampers the rigours of legal formalism without fabric upon which the administration of 2023 and other connected cases 17 Whether; 07.11.2023 interim order passed by this Court m relief to the petitioners, efflux of some time having passed since then and the petitioners being students; causes equity in favour of the petitioners. The crux of this aspect of the matter, as espoused on behalf of were afforded interim benefit of the 01.08.2023 01.09.2023 notification & since considerable time has passed thereafter, the said interim order deserves to be made absolute in exercise of equitable jurisdiction of this Court. delving into this aspect of the matter it would be to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in the case titled Gurpreet Singh vs. Guru RavidasAyurved University, VPO Kharkan, Una Road, District Hoshiarpur and another : Neutral Citation No.:= relevant whereof reads as under: “It is an immutable and sacrosanct obligation of a writ Court to dispense justice in accordance with the exalted principles of good conscience, justice and equity. However, the invocation of equitable jurisdiction does not confer upon the Court an unfettered prerogative to render orders in complete defiance or in oblivion of the established tenets of the law of the land. The administration of equity must operate within the defined risprudence and cannot transgress into the realm of judicial alien to the fundamental precepts of law, are substratum. Equity, in its true essence, does not which the law does not contemplate, nor does it conferment of benefits that stand in stark contradiction to mandates. The writ Court, whilst exercising its plenary powers inequity, is vested with the authority to bridge the lacunae that may exist framework of statutory provisions. However, such a course of action must be undertaken with due reverence to the overarching legal order, lest it results in judicial encroachment that supplant it; or it tampers the rigours of legal formalism without eviscerating the statutory fabric upon which the administration of justice firmly rests. The equitable Whether; 07.11.2023 interim order passed by this Court time having passed since then and the petitioners being students; on behalf of 01.08.2023 time has passed thereafter, the said interim order deserves to be made absolute in delving into this aspect of the matter it would be to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in the case titled Gurpreet Singh vs. Guru RavidasAyurved University, VPO Kharkan, n No.:= Court to dispense good conscience, uitable jurisdiction does prerogative to render orders in established tenets of the law of the must operate within the defined transgress into the realm of judicial alien to the fundamental precepts of law, are substratum. Equity, in its true essence, does not ntemplate, nor does it conferment of benefits that stand in stark contradiction to mandates. The writ Court, whilst exercising its plenary powers exist such a the overarching that supplant it; or it eviscerating the statutory justice firmly rests. The equitable AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 10.1. and 01.09.2023 07.11.2023 writ petition in hand some efflux of time since the petition by this Court. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners are aspiring to be doctors who are require knowledge of medical science(s) is a matter of profound public interest that the highest standards professional courses such as MBBS, which occupy an exalted position even within the domain of medical educati including MBBS, essentially deal directly with precious human life and it hence, necessitates that only those of proven merit and competence are permitted entry. mandate of law, prescribes minimum eligibility criteria or standards of qualification, such prescriptions must be regarded with the utmost sanctity. It 24261-2023 and other connected cases jurisdiction of a writ Court must be ensuring that its decisions do not precincts of legal propriety. The equity follows the law ––encapsulates the fundamental doctrine, namely, that an equitable relief must be harmonized with statutory provisions, not granted in derogation thereof. While it is within the remedy injustice where the law is silent or deficient, such remedial measures must not metamorphise into judicial legislation which impinges upon the extant rules. The Court, in its equitable jurisdiction serves as the guardian of justice, yet it must remain ever vigilant against the perils judicial overreach, wherein discretionary powers are wielded in a that proscribes legal mandates.” Indubitably, the interim benefit of the 01.09.2023 notification was granted to the petitioners 07.11.2023 earlier passed by this Court and writ petition in hand on 24.04.2025, which time line does reflect that there is some efflux of time since the petitioners were extended the interim benefit by this Court. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners are aspiring to be doctors who are require knowledge of medical science(s) and many ancillary skills of akin nat is a matter of profound public interest that the highest standards of qualification ought to be scrupulously maintained in professional courses such as MBBS, which occupy an exalted position even within the domain of medical education. The nature of these disciplines, including MBBS, essentially deal directly with precious human life and it necessitates that only those of proven merit and competence are permitted entry. When the competent examining authority, acting under th mandate of law, prescribes minimum eligibility criteria or standards of qualification, such prescriptions must be regarded with the utmost sanctity. It 2023 and other connected cases 18 jurisdiction of a writ Court must be exercised with judicious restraint, ensuring that its decisions do not traverse beyond the permissible legal propriety. The maxim Aequitas Sequitur Legem encapsulates the fundamental doctrine, namely, relief must be harmonized with statutory provisions, not derogation thereof. While it is within the writ Court’s remit to injustice where the law is silent or deficient, such remedial must not metamorphise into judicial legislation which impinges the extant rules. The Court, in its equitable jurisdiction serves as the tice, yet it must remain ever vigilant against the perils judicial overreach, wherein discretionary powers are wielded in a manner , the interim benefit of the 01.08.2023 guidelines was granted to the petitioners vide order dated and the judgment was reserved in the which time line does reflect that there is ers were extended the interim benefit by this Court. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners are aspiring to be doctors who are required to be professionals with astute and many ancillary skills of akin nature is a matter of profound public interest that the highest nay exceptional of qualification ought to be scrupulously maintained in professional courses such as MBBS, which occupy an exalted position even on. The nature of these disciplines, including MBBS, essentially deal directly with precious human life and it necessitates that only those of proven merit and competence are hen the competent examining authority, acting under th mandate of law, prescribes minimum eligibility criteria or standards of qualification, such prescriptions must be regarded with the utmost sanctity. It exercised with judicious restraint, traverse beyond the permissible Aequitas Sequitur Legem –– encapsulates the fundamental doctrine, namely, relief must be harmonized with statutory provisions, not writ Court’s remit to injustice where the law is silent or deficient, such remedial must not metamorphise into judicial legislation which impinges the extant rules. The Court, in its equitable jurisdiction serves as the tice, yet it must remain ever vigilant against the perils of manner 01.08.2023 guidelines vide order dated judgment was reserved in the which time line does reflect that there is ers were extended the interim benefit by this Court. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners are to be professionals with astute ure. It exceptional of qualification ought to be scrupulously maintained in professional courses such as MBBS, which occupy an exalted position even on. The nature of these disciplines, including MBBS, essentially deal directly with precious human life and it, necessitates that only those of proven merit and competence are hen the competent examining authority, acting under the mandate of law, prescribes minimum eligibility criteria or standards of qualification, such prescriptions must be regarded with the utmost sanctity. It AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 is neither appropriate nor permissible for a writ court, however noble its intentions, to dilute or ci prescribed are the outcome of deliberate and expert consideration to ensure that entrants possess the necessary intellectual acumen, academic proficiency, and professional aptitude to uphold the rigo profession. overseeing admissions is best placed to judge the qualifications required, which also responsibility. The arbitrary nor whimsical; rather, they are anchored in the larger objective of preserving the sanctity, integrity, and excellence of professional education and, time- larger public interest abstain from substituting their own notions of fairness embedded in such prescriptions. equitably and to advance the cause of justice. Yet, equity must operate within, and not outside, the framework of law. custodian of justice, function entrusted to Judicial intervention, if any, must be reserved for instances of manifest arbitrariness or egregious violation of constitutional rights or softening eligibility standards rooted i underscored that public interest far outweighs individual hardships matters concerning professional qualifications. must not obscure the larger imperative of maintaining competence within 24261-2023 and other connected cases is neither appropriate nor permissible for a writ court, however noble its intentions, to dilute or circumvent these standards. The conditions so prescribed are the outcome of deliberate and expert consideration to ensure that entrants possess the necessary intellectual acumen, academic proficiency, and professional aptitude to uphold the rigo profession. The authority tasked with conducting overseeing admissions is best placed to judge the qualifications required, which also being endowed with the requisite expertise and statutory responsibility. The eligibility norms framed by such authorities are neither arbitrary nor whimsical; rather, they are anchored in the larger objective of preserving the sanctity, integrity, and excellence of professional education -tested as well as aligned with rea larger public interest. Thus, the writ Court ought to abstain from substituting their own notions of fairness embedded in such prescriptions. The role of the writ equitably and to advance the cause of justice. Yet, equity must operate within, and not outside, the framework of law. custodian of justice, it must not, under the guise of equitable relief, usurp the function entrusted to expert bodies or render the statutory scheme nugatory. Judicial intervention, if any, must be reserved for instances of manifest arbitrariness or egregious violation of constitutional rights or softening eligibility standards rooted i underscored that public interest far outweighs individual hardships matters concerning professional qualifications. must not obscure the larger imperative of maintaining competence within 2023 and other connected cases 19 is neither appropriate nor permissible for a writ court, however noble its rcumvent these standards. The conditions so prescribed are the outcome of deliberate and expert considerations, tailored to ensure that entrants possess the necessary intellectual acumen, academic proficiency, and professional aptitude to uphold the rigours of the medical The authority tasked with conducting such examinations and overseeing admissions is best placed to judge the qualifications required, being endowed with the requisite expertise and statutory eligibility norms framed by such authorities are neither arbitrary nor whimsical; rather, they are anchored in the larger objective of preserving the sanctity, integrity, and excellence of professional education tested as well as aligned with real-time needs & requirements of writ Court ought to exercise restraint and abstain from substituting their own notions of fairness in lieu of the wisdom The role of the writ Court is indeed to act equitably and to advance the cause of justice. Yet, equity must operate within, and not outside, the framework of law. While the writ Court is must not, under the guise of equitable relief, usurp the expert bodies or render the statutory scheme nugatory. Judicial intervention, if any, must be reserved for instances of manifest arbitrariness or egregious violation of constitutional rights - not for revisiting or softening eligibility standards rooted in reason and necessity. It must be underscored that public interest far outweighs individual hardships, matters concerning professional qualifications. Sympathy, however natural, must not obscure the larger imperative of maintaining competence within is neither appropriate nor permissible for a writ court, however noble its rcumvent these standards. The conditions so , tailored to ensure that entrants possess the necessary intellectual acumen, academic s of the medical examinations and overseeing admissions is best placed to judge the qualifications required, being endowed with the requisite expertise and statutory eligibility norms framed by such authorities are neither arbitrary nor whimsical; rather, they are anchored in the larger objective of preserving the sanctity, integrity, and excellence of professional education time needs & requirements of exercise restraint and the wisdom o act equitably and to advance the cause of justice. Yet, equity must operate writ Court is the must not, under the guise of equitable relief, usurp the expert bodies or render the statutory scheme nugatory. Judicial intervention, if any, must be reserved for instances of manifest not for revisiting It must be in Sympathy, however natural, must not obscure the larger imperative of maintaining competence within AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 fields where public trust and lives are at stake. To allow otherwise would be to compromise not merely individual standards but the very edifice of professional excellence. be tempered with a deep respect The writ Court qualifications are applied fairly and uniformly based on misplaced notions of equity. possess a wide and potent jurisdiction, their exercise must be harmonious with the statutory framework, particularly in fields and public welfare converge. Judicial interference with prescribed qualifications should remain an inadvertently erode approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners Re: 24261-2023 and other connected cases elds where public trust and lives are at stake. To allow otherwise would be to compromise not merely individual standards but the very edifice of professional excellence. Thus, the judicial conscience must, in such matters, be tempered with a deep respect for statutory intent and the greater good. rit Court must confine itself qualifications are applied fairly and uniformly based on misplaced notions of equity. possess a wide and potent jurisdiction, their exercise must be harmonious with the statutory framework, particularly in fields and public welfare converge. Judicial interference with prescribed qualifications should remain an exception, not the rule, lest the court inadvertently erodes the very standards it is duty The pristine words of Benjamin N. approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court “The judge, even when he is free, innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sent vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life. Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains” Ergo, this Court finds itself unable to exercise its equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Whether the dicta of Division Bench judgments of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, holding that 01.09.2023 notification binding precedent upon this Court. 2023 and other connected cases 20 elds where public trust and lives are at stake. To allow otherwise would be to compromise not merely individual standards but the very edifice of Thus, the judicial conscience must, in such matters, for statutory intent and the greater good. itself to ensuring that the prescribed qualifications are applied fairly and uniformly; not to carving out exceptions In conclusion, while writ courts possess a wide and potent jurisdiction, their exercise must be harmonious with the statutory framework, particularly in fields where technical expertise and public welfare converge. Judicial interference with prescribed exception, not the rule, lest the court the very standards it is duty-bound to uphold. Benjamin N. Cardozo, which met with approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, read thus: The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life. Wide e field of discretion that remains” this Court finds itself unable to exercise its equitable on Bench judgments of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, 01.09.2023 notification has retrospective effect, is upon this Court. elds where public trust and lives are at stake. To allow otherwise would be to compromise not merely individual standards but the very edifice of Thus, the judicial conscience must, in such matters, for statutory intent and the greater good. to ensuring that the prescribed not to carving out exceptions, urts possess a wide and potent jurisdiction, their exercise must be harmonious where technical expertise and public welfare converge. Judicial interference with prescribed exception, not the rule, lest the court Cardozo, which met with is still not wholly free. He is not to errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration iment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life. Wide this Court finds itself unable to exercise its equitable on Bench judgments of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, has retrospective effect, is AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 11. the dicta of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench(s) of Hon’ble Madras High Court and Hon’ble Kerala High Court the issue of conclusively decided therein in favour 11.1. apposite to (i) titled as 1979(4) SCC 429, (ii) in a case of 1993 SCC Online Bom 591 24261-2023 and other connected cases Learned counsel for the petitioners has vociferously relied up the dicta of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench(s) of Hon’ble Madras High Court and Hon’ble Kerala High Court the issue of 01.09.2023 notification conclusively decided therein in favour of the petitioners. Before delving into this aspect of the matter, it would be apposite to refer herein to relevant case-law A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Valliama Champaka Pillai vs. Sivathanu Pi 1979(4) SCC 429, has held as under: “18. xxxxxxxxxxxx. The point sought to be made out is that the Madras High Court was legally bound to apply the Travancore Limitation Regulation as interpreted by the Travancore High Court, in preferen the earlier decisions of the Madras High Court. It is urged that even on the doctrine of stare decisis, the learned Judges of the High Court ought to have adhered to the view taken by the Travancore Court in the said cases. xxx xxx xxx xxx 21. These erroneous decisions of the Travancore Court could, at best, have a persuasive effect and not the force of binding precedents on the Madras High Court. There is nothing in the Act 1956 or any other law which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the status of a binding law, nor could the ratio decidendi of those decisions be perpetuated by invoking the doctrine of stare decisis. Further, a Division Bench of the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. 1993 SCC Online Bom 591, has held that: “12. It is equally well settled that the decision of a binding precedent on another High Court. The Supreme Court in Valliama Champaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pillai Court 1937, dealing with the controversy whether a decis 2023 and other connected cases 21 Learned counsel for the petitioners has vociferously relied up the dicta of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench(s) of Hon’ble Madras High Court and Hon’ble Kerala High Court to argue that being retrospective in nature is of the petitioners. Before delving into this aspect of the matter, it would be law, viz: hree Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Champaka Pillai vs. Sivathanu Pillai and others, he point sought to be made out is that the Madras High Court was legally bound to apply the Travancore Limitation Regulation as interpreted by the Travancore High Court, in preference to the earlier decisions of the Madras High Court. It is urged that even on the doctrine of stare decisis, the learned Judges of the High Court ought to have adhered to the view taken by the Travancore Court in the said cases. xxx xxx xxx xxx These erroneous decisions of the Travancore Court could, at best, have a persuasive effect and not the force of binding precedents on the Madras High Court. There is nothing in the States Reorganisation 1956 or any other law which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the status of a binding law, nor could the ratio decidendi of those decisions be rine of stare decisis.” a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. has held that: It is equally well settled that the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent on another High Court. The Supreme Court Champaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pillai, AIR 1979 Supreme dealing with the controversy whether a decision of the Learned counsel for the petitioners has vociferously relied upon the to argue that being retrospective in nature is Before delving into this aspect of the matter, it would be hree Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case llai and others, he point sought to be made out is that the Madras High Court was legally bound to apply the Travancore Limitation ce to the earlier decisions of the Madras High Court. It is urged that even on the doctrine of stare decisis, the learned Judges of the High Court ought to have adhered to the view taken by the Travancore Court in the said cases. These erroneous decisions of the Travancore Court could, at best, have a persuasive effect and not the force of binding precedents on the States Reorganisation 1956 or any other law which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the status of a binding law, nor could the ratio decidendi of those decisions be Bombay High Court Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. one High Court is not a binding precedent on another High Court. The Supreme Court AIR 1979 Supreme ion of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 (iii) judgment titled as Petition No.2031 of 2018 decided on 16.06.2021, has held as under: 24261-2023 and other connected cases erstwhile Travancore High Court can be made a binding precedent on the Madras High Court on the basis of the principle of stare decisis, clearly held that such a decision can at best have persuasive effect and not the force of binding precedent on the Madras High Court. Referring to the States Reorganisation Act, it was observed that there was nothing in the said Act or any other law which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the status of a binding law nor could the ratio decidendi of those de perpetuated by invoking the doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis cannot be stretched that far as to make the decision of one High Court a binding precedent for the other. This doctrine is applicable only to different Benches of the same High Court. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble judgment titled as Dharmendra M. Jani vs. Union of India & Ors. Petition No.2031 of 2018 decided on 16.06.2021, has held as under: “59. It is a settled legal proposition that decision of one High Court is not binding on another High Court though it deserves due consideration and certainly has a high persuasive value. This position has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Valliamma (1980) 1 SCR 354 and by this Court in Limited, (1994) 206 ITR 727. In Supreme Court declared that the erroneous decisions rendered by the erstwhile Travancore High Court could not be made binding on the Madras High Court. Such decisions could at best have a persuasive effect. There is nothing in the States Re- which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the status of a binding law nor could the ratio decidendi of those decisions be perpetuated doctrine of stare decisis. Expanding on this, this Court in Electricity Supply Limited (supra) held that the decision of one High Court is neither a binding precedent for another Hig tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the states or territories over which the Court has jurisdiction. In other states or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may at best have only persuasive effect. By no amount of stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis, can judgments of one High Court be given the status of a binding precedent so far other 2023 and other connected cases 22 erstwhile Travancore High Court can be made a binding precedent on the Madras High Court on the basis of the principle of stare decisis, clearly held that such a decision can at best have persuasive effect and not the on the Madras High Court. Referring to the States Reorganisation Act, it was observed that there was nothing in the said Act or any other law which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the status of a binding law nor could the ratio decidendi of those decisions be perpetuated by invoking the doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis cannot be stretched that far as to make the decision of one High Court a binding precedent for the other. This doctrine is applicable only to of the same High Court. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a Dharmendra M. Jani vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition No.2031 of 2018 decided on 16.06.2021, has held as under: proposition that decision of one High Court is not binding on another High Court though it deserves due consideration and certainly has a high persuasive value. This position has been clarified Valliamma Champaka Pillai Vs. Sivathanu Pillai (1980) 1 SCR 354 and by this Court in CIT Vs. Thane Electricity Supply In Valliamma Champaka Pillai (supra), Supreme Court declared that the erroneous decisions rendered by the erstwhile Travancore High Court could not be made binding on the Madras High Court. Such decisions could at best have a persuasive effect. -organisation Act, 1956 or any other law which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the status of a binding law nor could the ratio decidendi of those decisions be perpetuated by invoking the Expanding on this, this Court in Thane (supra) held that the decision of one High Court is neither a binding precedent for another High Court nor for courts or tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the states or territories over which the Court has jurisdiction. In other ates or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may at best have only persuasive effect. By no amount of stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis, can judgments of one High Court be given the status of a binding precedent so far other High Courts or courts or erstwhile Travancore High Court can be made a binding precedent on the Madras High Court on the basis of the principle of stare decisis, clearly held that such a decision can at best have persuasive effect and not the on the Madras High Court. Referring to the States Reorganisation Act, it was observed that there was nothing in the said Act or any other law which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the cisions be perpetuated by invoking the doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis cannot be stretched that far as to make the decision of one High Court a binding precedent for the other. This doctrine is applicable only to in a in Writ proposition that decision of one High Court is not binding on another High Court though it deserves due consideration and certainly has a high persuasive value. This position has been clarified Champaka Pillai Vs. Sivathanu Pillai, CIT Vs. Thane Electricity Supply (supra), Supreme Court declared that the erroneous decisions rendered by the erstwhile Travancore High Court could not be made binding on the Madras High Court. Such decisions could at best have a persuasive effect. or any other law which exalts the ratio of those decisions to the status of a binding law nor by invoking the Thane (supra) held that the decision of one High Court h Court nor for courts or tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the states or territories over which the Court has jurisdiction. In other ates or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may at best have only persuasive effect. By no amount of stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis, can judgments of one High Court be given the High Courts or courts or AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 doctrine of binding precedents, originates from the maxim “ non quieta movere”, not to disturb what is settled decision, once rendered, ought to be adhered to in subsequent cases involving sim and predictability in the administration legal axiom that random manner for this would speedily land everything in “ confused”. correctness, though not infallibly perfect; and by these even though a rigorous adherence to them might at times work individual hardshi serving as precedents not lightly to be changed. merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides the individual daily affairs. within the jurisprudential framework, operates within a hierarchical structure. It is concerning the inter various jurisdictions must be understood. 24261-2023 and other connected cases tribunals outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court are concerned.” The doctrine of Stare Decisis doctrine of binding precedents, originates from the maxim “ non quieta movere”, translation whereof reads not to disturb what is settled”. It embodies the desideratum that judicial decision, once rendered, ought to be adhered to in subsequent cases involving similar questions of law, thereby fostering consistency, certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. legal axiom that the Courts should not exercise their jurisdiction in any random manner for this would speedily land everything in “ confused”. Of necessity there must be certain fixed land correctness, though not infallibly perfect; and by these even though a rigorous adherence to them might at times work individual hardship. These land-marks are, of course, prior decisions serving as precedents not lightly to be changed. merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides the individual, as to the consequence of transactions daily affairs. However, this salutary doctrine, while deeply entrenched within the jurisprudential framework, operates within a hierarchical structure. It is within this structural context that the nuanced position concerning the inter-relationship between decisions of High Courts across various jurisdictions must be understood. 2023 and other connected cases 23 tribunals outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court are ecisis, more commonly known as doctrine of binding precedents, originates from the maxim “Stare Decisis translation whereof reads –– “to stand by precedent and It embodies the desideratum that judicial decision, once rendered, ought to be adhered to in subsequent cases w, thereby fostering consistency, certainty of justice. This doctrine reflects Courts should not exercise their jurisdiction in any random manner for this would speedily land everything in “confusion worse Of necessity there must be certain fixed land-marks approaching correctness, though not infallibly perfect; and the Courts should be guided by these even though a rigorous adherence to them might at times work marks are, of course, prior decisions serving as precedents not lightly to be changed. Ergo, this doctrine has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to as to the consequence of transactions, forming part of his However, this salutary doctrine, while deeply entrenched within the jurisprudential framework, operates within a hierarchical within this structural context that the nuanced position relationship between decisions of High Courts across tribunals outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court are more commonly known as ecisis et to stand by precedent and It embodies the desideratum that judicial decision, once rendered, ought to be adhered to in subsequent cases w, thereby fostering consistency, certainty This doctrine reflects the Courts should not exercise their jurisdiction in any confusion worse marks approaching Courts should be guided by these even though a rigorous adherence to them might at times work marks are, of course, prior decisions this doctrine has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and providing assurance to forming part of his However, this salutary doctrine, while deeply entrenched within the jurisprudential framework, operates within a hierarchical within this structural context that the nuanced position relationship between decisions of High Courts across AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 indubitably reflects that th precedent for another High Court. The doctrine of implore the judgments of one High Court to be of binding precedent as other High Court stretching of the doctrine of be given the status of a binding precedent concerned. Any such attempt will go counter to the very doctrine of decisis and also the has interpreted the scope and ambit thereof. The fact that there is only one decision of any High Court on a particular point or that number of different High Courts have taken identical views in that re that purpose. Whatever may be the conclusion, the decisions cannot have the force of binding precedent on other High Courts. is reserved only for the decisions of the binding on all Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. judiciary, where each High Court exercises jurisdiction over a defined territorial region and is a Constitution. The rationale underpinning the non Court decisions Each High Court is competent to interpret and apply the law within its own territorial limits, and in doing so, it may adopt a view distinct from that of another High Court. While a pronouncement from a High court, particularly one rendered after detailed analysis and reasoned exposition, may commond 24261-2023 and other connected cases The ratio decidendi of the above demiurgic case indubitably reflects that the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent for another High Court. The doctrine of implore the judgments of one High Court to be of binding precedent as other High Courts are concerned. In other words, by no stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis be given the status of a binding precedent concerned. Any such attempt will go counter to the very doctrine of and also the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble interpreted the scope and ambit thereof. The fact that there is only one decision of any High Court on a particular point or that number of different High Courts have taken identical views in that re that purpose. Whatever may be the conclusion, the decisions cannot have the force of binding precedent on other High Courts. is reserved only for the decisions of the inding on all Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. The distinction arises from the federal character of the Indian judiciary, where each High Court exercises jurisdiction over a defined territorial region and is a Court of R Constitution. The rationale underpinning the non Court decisions inter se lies in the very architecture of judicial federalism. Each High Court is competent to interpret and apply the law within its own territorial limits, and in doing so, it may adopt a view distinct from that of another High Court. While a pronouncement from a High court, particularly one rendered after detailed analysis and reasoned exposition, may commond 2023 and other connected cases 24 of the above demiurgic case-law e decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent for another High Court. The doctrine of Stare Decisis does not implore the judgments of one High Court to be of binding precedent inso In other words, by no quantum stare decisis, can judgments of one High Court be given the status of a binding precedent insofar as other High Courts are concerned. Any such attempt will go counter to the very doctrine of stare laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which interpreted the scope and ambit thereof. The fact that there is only one decision of any High Court on a particular point or that number of different High Courts have taken identical views in that regard is not at all relevant for that purpose. Whatever may be the conclusion, the decisions cannot have the force of binding precedent on other High Courts. Such demiurgic status is reserved only for the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are inding on all Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the The distinction arises from the federal character of the Indian judiciary, where each High Court exercises jurisdiction over a defined Court of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution. The rationale underpinning the non-binding nature of High lies in the very architecture of judicial federalism. Each High Court is competent to interpret and apply the law within its own territorial limits, and in doing so, it may adopt a view distinct from that of another High Court. While a pronouncement from a High court, particularly one rendered after detailed analysis and reasoned exposition, may commond law e decision of one High Court is not a binding does not ofar tum of , can judgments of one High Court sofar as other High Courts are stare which interpreted the scope and ambit thereof. The fact that there is only one decision of any High Court on a particular point or that number of different gard is not at all relevant for that purpose. Whatever may be the conclusion, the decisions cannot have status Supreme Court which are inding on all Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the The distinction arises from the federal character of the Indian judiciary, where each High Court exercises jurisdiction over a defined under Article 215 of the binding nature of High lies in the very architecture of judicial federalism. Each High Court is competent to interpret and apply the law within its own territorial limits, and in doing so, it may adopt a view distinct from that of another High Court. While a pronouncement from a High court, particularly one rendered after detailed analysis and reasoned exposition, may commond AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 high persuasive authority, i sense for other High Courts. law will be bereft of all its utility if it ought to be thrown into the state of uncertainty on account of conflicting that a High Court while deferring with a view taken by other High Court(s) ought to record its dissent with reasons therefor. In other words, a judgment of other High Court(s) ought to be taken note of and dissented with upon recording reasons, including reasons for not adhering to persuasive value of judgment of 12. counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment 28.02.2025 rendered by the Kerala passed in WA Antony P. ‘judgment dated 28.02.2025 and consideration at our end consideration, are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the Hon'ble Kera constrained, notice does not appear to have been adverted to by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court while rendering the public notice authority ( 24261-2023 and other connected cases high persuasive authority, it does not operate as a precedent in the binding sense for other High Courts. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of law will be bereft of all its utility if it ought to be thrown into the state of uncertainty on account of conflicting stalemate that a High Court while deferring with a view taken by other High Court(s) ought to record its dissent with reasons therefor. In other words, a judgment of other High Court(s) ought to be taken note of and dissented with upon recording reasons, including reasons for not adhering to persuasive value of judgment of another High Court(s). Adverting to the present matter, it is noticeable that learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment 28.02.2025 rendered by the Division bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala passed in WA-403-2025 titled as National Medical Commission Vs. Antony P. Alappat and Others; 2025:KER:22334 judgment dated 28.02.2025’). While the pronouncement undoubtedly commands great respect and consideration at our end; we yet, after a circumspect and thoughtful consideration, are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the Hon'ble Kera constrained, with humility, to take a different FIRSTLY, it is pertinent to note that the does not appear to have been adverted to by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court while rendering the judgment dated 28.02.2025. public notice unequivocally articulates the intention of the promulgating authority (NMC) to apply the 01.09.2023 notif 2023 and other connected cases 25 t does not operate as a precedent in the binding the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that law will be bereft of all its utility if it ought to be thrown into the state of stalemates and, therefore, it is essential that a High Court while deferring with a view taken by other High Court(s) ought to record its dissent with reasons therefor. In other words, a judgment of other High Court(s) ought to be taken note of and dissented with only upon recording reasons, including reasons for not adhering to persuasive High Court(s). Adverting to the present matter, it is noticeable that learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment dated ivision bench of the Hon'ble High Court of National Medical Commission Vs. lappat and Others; 2025:KER:22334. (hereinafter referred to as While the pronouncement undoubtedly commands great respect after a circumspect and thoughtful consideration, are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. Thus, we are different view for the reasons, namely: , it is pertinent to note that the 03.10.2023 public does not appear to have been adverted to by the Hon'ble Kerala High judgment dated 28.02.2025. The 03.10.2023 unequivocally articulates the intention of the promulgating 01.09.2023 notification prospectively. It t does not operate as a precedent in the binding that law will be bereft of all its utility if it ought to be thrown into the state of and, therefore, it is essential that a High Court while deferring with a view taken by other High Court(s) ought to record its dissent with reasons therefor. In other words, a judgment only upon recording reasons, including reasons for not adhering to persuasive Adverting to the present matter, it is noticeable that learned dated ivision bench of the Hon'ble High Court of National Medical Commission Vs. . (hereinafter referred to as While the pronouncement undoubtedly commands great respect after a circumspect and thoughtful consideration, are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the reasoning Court. Thus, we are view for the reasons, namely: 03.10.2023 public does not appear to have been adverted to by the Hon'ble Kerala High 03.10.2023 unequivocally articulates the intention of the promulgating prospectively. It AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 appears, that the attention of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which, had it been considered, might have account that the course under consideration pertains to the field of Medicine, namely the MBBS programme which, by its very nature, is a highly specialised and professional discipline. In such a sensitive domain, higher qualification st aspirations but to safeguard the broader public interest. It is a settled canon that Courts ought to exercise utmost circumspection before intervening in matters of academic standards set by a statutory a particularly when those standards are rooted in considerations of public welfare and safety. Individual hardships, however sympathetic, cannot outweigh the collective good necessitating rigorous professional benchmarks. proceeded on the premise that the clarificatory, thereby affording it retrospective operation. However, a plain and harmonious construction of the language employed therein r such intent to merely elucidate or clarify existing ambiguities. On the contrary, the altogether new regulatory framework, introducing substantive changes rather than merely explicating previou guidelines express declaration contained in the 24261-2023 and other connected cases appears, that the 03.10.2023 public notice attention of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which, had it been considered, might have resulted in another view. SECONDLY, the judgment dated 28.02.2025 account that the course under consideration pertains to the field of Medicine, namely the MBBS programme which, by its very nature, is a highly specialised and professional discipline. In such a sensitive domain, higher qualification standards are mandated not merely to serve individual aspirations but to safeguard the broader public interest. It is a settled canon that Courts ought to exercise utmost circumspection before intervening in matters of academic standards set by a statutory a particularly when those standards are rooted in considerations of public welfare and safety. Individual hardships, however sympathetic, cannot outweigh the collective good necessitating rigorous professional benchmarks. THIRDLY, the judgment dated 28.02.2025 proceeded on the premise that the 01.09.2023 notification clarificatory, thereby affording it retrospective operation. However, a plain and harmonious construction of the language employed therein r such intent to merely elucidate or clarify existing ambiguities. On the contrary, the 01.09.2023 notification altogether new regulatory framework, introducing substantive changes rather than merely explicating previous provisions as propounded vide guidelines. In such circumstances, and more so particularly in light of the express declaration contained in the 03.10.2023 public notice 2023 and other connected cases 26 03.10.2023 public notice may not have been brought to the attention of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which, had it been considered, judgment dated 28.02.2025 has not taken into account that the course under consideration pertains to the field of Medicine, namely the MBBS programme which, by its very nature, is a highly specialised and professional discipline. In such a sensitive domain, higher andards are mandated not merely to serve individual aspirations but to safeguard the broader public interest. It is a settled canon that Courts ought to exercise utmost circumspection before intervening in matters of academic standards set by a statutory authority such as the NMC particularly when those standards are rooted in considerations of public welfare and safety. Individual hardships, however sympathetic, cannot outweigh the collective good necessitating rigorous professional judgment dated 28.02.2025 appears to have 01.09.2023 notification was merely clarificatory, thereby affording it retrospective operation. However, a plain and harmonious construction of the language employed therein reveals no such intent to merely elucidate or clarify existing ambiguities. On the 01.09.2023 notification manifests promulgation of an altogether new regulatory framework, introducing substantive changes rather s provisions as propounded vide 01.08.2023 . In such circumstances, and more so particularly in light of the 03.10.2023 public notice prescribing may not have been brought to the attention of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which, had it been considered, has not taken into account that the course under consideration pertains to the field of Medicine, namely the MBBS programme which, by its very nature, is a highly specialised and professional discipline. In such a sensitive domain, higher andards are mandated not merely to serve individual aspirations but to safeguard the broader public interest. It is a settled canon that Courts ought to exercise utmost circumspection before intervening in NMC, particularly when those standards are rooted in considerations of public welfare and safety. Individual hardships, however sympathetic, cannot outweigh the collective good necessitating rigorous professional appears to have was merely clarificatory, thereby affording it retrospective operation. However, a plain eveals no such intent to merely elucidate or clarify existing ambiguities. On the manifests promulgation of an altogether new regulatory framework, introducing substantive changes rather 01.08.2023 . In such circumstances, and more so particularly in light of the prescribing AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 prospective application, the established canon of statutory interpretation, be treated as clarificatory so as to warrant retrospective operation. 13. reliance upon the judgment dated 23.01.2025 rendered by the division of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras passed in WA Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, P Megha Maria Joe and others 23.01.2025 High Court of Madras, it must be observed that, apart from the matter being factually distinguishable from the instant case, we, upon a circumspect and anxious consideration, paragraph 15 that the rules embodied in the those students it is pertinent to note that the examination process was still ongoing, as the practical component of the examination had been conducted subsequent to 01.08.2023 It was in these circumstances that the benefit of the was extended to the students therein. In contradistinction, in the present case under consideration, the entire process of examination had already culminated, and the final results were duly declared on 18.08.2023, which was prior to the issuance and comi 24261-2023 and other connected cases prospective application, the 01.09.2023 notification established canon of statutory interpretation, be treated as clarificatory so as to warrant retrospective operation. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 23.01.2025 rendered by the division of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras passed in WA Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, P Megha Maria Joe and others,(hereinafter referred to as ‘ 23.01.2025’). With the highest respect and profound deference to the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it must be observed that, apart from the matter being factually distinguishable from the instant case, we, upon a circumspect and anxious consideration, are unable to concur with the view enun paragraph 15 of the judgment dated 23.01.2025 that the rules embodied in the 01.08.2023 those students also whose results had not been declared by the said date. In the factual milieu before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it is pertinent to note that the examination process was still ongoing, as the practical component of the examination had been conducted subsequent to 01.08.2023 — the date on which the 01.08.2023 It was in these circumstances that the benefit of the was extended to the students therein. In contradistinction, in the present case under consideration, the entire process of examination had already culminated, and the final results were duly declared on 18.08.2023, which was prior to the issuance and coming into effect of 2023 and other connected cases 27 01.09.2023 notification cannot, by any established canon of statutory interpretation, be treated as clarificatory so as Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 23.01.2025 rendered by the division bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras passed in WA-333-2024 titled as The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry Vs. ,(hereinafter referred to as ‘judgment dated ect and profound deference to the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it must be observed that, apart from the matter being factually distinguishable from the instant case, we, upon a circumspect and unable to concur with the view enunciated in judgment dated 23.01.2025, wherein it has been held 01.08.2023 guidelines would be applicable to whose results had not been declared by the said date. before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it is pertinent to note that the examination process was still ongoing, as the practical component of the examination had been conducted subsequent to 01.08.2023 guidelines came into force. It was in these circumstances that the benefit of the 01.08.2023 guidelines was extended to the students therein. In contradistinction, in the present case under consideration, the entire process of examination had already culminated, and the final results were duly declared on 18.08.2023, which ng into effect of the 01.09.2023 any established canon of statutory interpretation, be treated as clarificatory so as Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed bench The ndicherry Vs. judgment dated ect and profound deference to the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it must be observed that, apart from the matter being factually distinguishable from the instant case, we, upon a circumspect and ciated in , wherein it has been held would be applicable to before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it is pertinent to note that the examination process was still ongoing, as the practical component of the examination had been conducted subsequent to nto force. guidelines was extended to the students therein. In contradistinction, in the present case under consideration, the entire process of examination had already culminated, and the final results were duly declared on 18.08.2023, which 01.09.2023 AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 notification to the 01.09.2023 notification amount to a revision or alteration of results already declared that finds no sanction in law and is anathema to Such a course would offend the finality of results and introduce uncertainty into the domain of academic paramount conc of Madras in excerpt of which is as follows: judgment dated 23.01.2025 appears to us, with hu of the 01.08.2023 thereby imparting to it a retrospective character, which is neither expressly provided for nor can be inferred by necess As per the settled canons of statutory construction, a provision affecting substantive rights must, in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, be construed to operate prospectively. The language of the 01.08.2023 evince any such retrospective application Decision: 24261-2023 and other connected cases notification. Consequently, any endeavour to accord retrospective operation 01.09.2023 notification in the facts of the instant case would, in effect, amount to a revision or alteration of results already declared that finds no sanction in law and is anathema to Such a course would offend the finality of results and introduce uncertainty into the domain of academic evaluation, a result that the law, with its paramount concern for certainty and stability, cannot countenance. Adverting to the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in paragraph 15 of judgment dated 23.01.2025 excerpt of which is as follows: “15. ……..To state with more clarity, the students, whose results have not been published by 01.08.2023.” With the utmost respect and reverence for the esteemed judgment dated 23.01.2025 rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it appears to us, with humility, that such an interpretation extends the operation 01.08.2023 guidelines beyond its natural and intended temporal limits, thereby imparting to it a retrospective character, which is neither expressly provided for nor can be inferred by necess As per the settled canons of statutory construction, a provision affecting substantive rights must, in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, be construed to operate prospectively. The language of the .08.2023 guidelines, upon a plain and grammatical reading, does not evince any such retrospective application. : 2023 and other connected cases 28 . Consequently, any endeavour to accord retrospective operation in the facts of the instant case would, in effect, amount to a revision or alteration of results already declared — a proposition that finds no sanction in law and is anathema to the settled legal principles. Such a course would offend the finality of results and introduce uncertainty evaluation, a result that the law, with its ern for certainty and stability, cannot countenance. Adverting to the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court judgment dated 23.01.2025, the pertinent “15. ……..To state with more clarity, the new regulations would apply to the students, whose results have not been published by 01.08.2023.” With the utmost respect and reverence for the esteemed rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it mility, that such an interpretation extends the operation beyond its natural and intended temporal limits, thereby imparting to it a retrospective character, which is neither expressly provided for nor can be inferred by necessary implication from its language. As per the settled canons of statutory construction, a provision affecting substantive rights must, in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, be construed to operate prospectively. The language of the , upon a plain and grammatical reading, does not . . Consequently, any endeavour to accord retrospective operation in the facts of the instant case would, in effect, a proposition settled legal principles. Such a course would offend the finality of results and introduce uncertainty evaluation, a result that the law, with its Adverting to the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court , the pertinent the new regulations would apply to With the utmost respect and reverence for the esteemed rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it mility, that such an interpretation extends the operation beyond its natural and intended temporal limits, thereby imparting to it a retrospective character, which is neither expressly ary implication from its language. As per the settled canons of statutory construction, a provision affecting substantive rights must, in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, be construed to operate prospectively. The language of the , upon a plain and grammatical reading, does not AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24261 14. writ petitions is dismissed. disposed of (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE May 06, 202 Ajay 24261-2023 and other connected cases In view of the prevenient ratiocination writ petitions is dismissed. Pending applicati disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2023 and other connected cases 29 atiocination, the instant batch of civil Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand There shall be no order as to costs. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE Yes/No Yes/No the instant batch of civil shall also stand AJAY KUMAR 2025.05.06 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "
Other Referred Cases
Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry vs. Megha Maria Joe and others, National Medical Commission vs. Antony P. Alappat and others
Laws Referred To
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
Shipping and Logistics Agreement
₹0
Rectification Letter - Application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of I.T. Act
Mehul₹0
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026