Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a medical student seeking permission to take a fifth attempt in the First Year MBBS Biochemistry examination. Justice R. Devdas held that no court can override or relax statutory academic regulations framed by the National Medical Commission (NMC) and the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), which expressly restrict the number of attempts to four.
The Court observed:
“The law is very clear in this regard. No Court can pass an order contrary to the Regulations and norms prescribed by the University.”
Accordingly, the Court refused to issue any direction to the authorities to permit a fifth attempt, holding that judicial discretion cannot be exercised to dilute statutory academic standards.
Facts
The petitioner, a medical student enrolled in a recognised medical college in Bengaluru, had appeared for the First Year MBBS examination four times but failed to clear one subject — Biochemistry. Having exhausted all permissible attempts under university regulations, she submitted representations to the National Medical Commission (NMC), the State Health Department, and RGUHS, seeking permission for a “mercy attempt.”
The petitioner argued that she had cleared all other papers and only needed to pass one remaining subject to proceed to the next academic year. Her representations were forwarded but no relief was granted, leading her to file a writ petition before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to allow her to appear in the upcoming examination scheduled for September–October 2025.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can direct a medical university or the NMC to permit a student to take an additional attempt beyond the number prescribed in the Regulations.
- Whether humanitarian or equitable considerations can justify deviation from statutory academic standards.
- Whether academic regulations framed by statutory bodies are mandatory and binding on all students and institutions.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to permit a fifth and final attempt purely as a mercy measure, given that she had only one paper remaining to clear the year. It was contended that denial of another opportunity would be disproportionately harsh and detrimental to her career, especially since she had successfully cleared all other subjects and demonstrated continued diligence.
She submitted that the regulatory limit of four attempts was directory rather than mandatory, and that exceptional cases could be considered on compassionate grounds. It was further argued that the object of medical education is to create competent doctors, not to enforce rigid procedural barriers that jeopardise students’ futures for marginal failures.
Invoking the Court’s powers under Article 226, the petitioner urged the bench to issue a one-time relaxation, emphasising that the requested relief would not affect academic standards since it concerned only a single examination paper.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents — representing the Union of India, the National Medical Commission, and the State’s Directorate of Medical Education — opposed the petition, submitting that academic norms and eligibility criteria are statutory and binding, leaving no room for discretionary relaxation.
It was pointed out that both the NMC and RGUHS Regulations uniformly limit the number of attempts for any MBBS subject to four, and that granting an exception would set an undesirable precedent undermining the integrity of medical education.
The respondents stressed that judicial interference in academic matters should be minimal, citing the principle that courts cannot substitute their discretion for that of expert academic bodies. They argued that if individual mercy pleas were entertained, the entire regulatory framework governing medical education would lose uniformity and credibility.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (1997) issued by the Medical Council of India (now NMC), which prescribe that a student must pass all First Year subjects within four attempts, failing which they are not entitled to continue in the MBBS course. These Regulations derive statutory force under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and are binding on all medical universities.
The Court reiterated that judicial review in academic matters is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and legality, not to substituting or relaxing academic standards. While the Court sympathised with the petitioner’s predicament, it emphasised that compassion cannot justify violation of statutory norms.
Referring to State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute (1991) 3 SCC 87, the Court reiterated that “Courts cannot act as appellate authorities over academic regulations.” Likewise, the principle laid down in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao (1964 SCR 112) — that academic expertise must be respected — was invoked.
Precedent Analysis
- Medical Council of India v. Sarang (2001) 8 SCC 427 – Held that NMC/MCI regulations are statutory and binding; courts cannot issue directions contrary to them.
- State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute (1991) 3 SCC 87 – Judicial interference in academic policy is impermissible; sympathy cannot replace statutory compliance.
- University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao (1964 SCR 112) – Courts must defer to the opinion of academic authorities in technical and educational matters.
- A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P. (1986) 2 SCC 667 – Universities are bound by statutory regulations; courts cannot compel violations in individual cases.
By applying these precedents, the Court concluded that allowing a fifth attempt would violate the uniformity and discipline central to medical education regulations.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Devdas observed that the court’s compassion cannot be allowed to override the law. The Bench noted that the Regulations explicitly restrict the number of attempts and that any relaxation would not only be beyond the Court’s jurisdiction but would also undermine fairness to other students who abide by the rules.
The Court held that the student’s failure to clear the subject within the prescribed attempts, though unfortunate, could not be remedied through judicial intervention. The petitioner’s appeal was described as a “mercy plea” outside the statutory framework.
The Court stated:
“No Court can pass an order contrary to the Regulations and norms prescribed by the University.”
It concluded that educational institutions and statutory bodies are obligated to enforce regulations uniformly and that granting selective exemptions would compromise the credibility of the regulatory system.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to a fifth attempt in the First Year MBBS examination. The Court reaffirmed that judicial sympathy cannot dilute statutory academic regulations framed by competent authorities.
The judgment underscores that academic discipline and regulatory consistency must prevail over individual hardship, even in cases evoking compassion.
Implications
- Confirms that universities and regulatory bodies have binding authority over examination standards.
- Reiterates that courts cannot issue directions contrary to statutory academic norms.
- Reinforces academic integrity by discouraging mercy-based exceptions.
- Affirms limited judicial scope in educational matters, preserving autonomy of professional bodies like NMC and RGUHS.
