New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions for a uniform and fraud-resistant verification mechanism for medical qualifications and registrations across the country.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed the plea filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, while discouraging him from routinely filing PILs before the apex court.
“You file one PIL per week. What kind of petitions do you draft? You have made it a factory. That’s what, every week you file a writ petition. You draft the moment you see news. Look at your prayers. Do you ever apply your mind?” the Justice Narasimha-led Bench remarked.
It further questioned whether such petitions were being filed for publicity, saying, “Why do you do such things just because it’s easy to file a writ petition and anybody can file and get publicity? Just don’t pile us with petitions like this routinely.”
Goswami, appearing in person, sought to explain that the PIL raised important questions concerning the verification of medical qualifications and registrations. He also referred to statistics cited in the petition regarding alleged fake or forged medical degrees.
However, the apex court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it.
The PIL, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, had sought enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 and directions for implementation of the statutory framework under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
The petitioner had argued that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to safe and competent medical treatment and that persons holding forged, doubtful, or unverified qualifications should not be permitted to enter or continue in the medical profession.
The plea sought a “reliable, auditable, fraud-resistant and due-process-compliant” verification mechanism for medical qualifications and registrations, including verification before initial registration, renewal, addition of qualifications and continuation of a licence to practise. It contended that the National Medical Register was not merely an electronic database but the statutory foundation on which patients, hospitals, public authorities and society rely to establish that a medical practitioner is duly qualified and registered.
The plea referred to several reported incidents involving alleged fake educational and professional qualifications to contend that such cases represented a recurring regulatory concern.
It cited a reported raid by the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force at Monad University in Hapur in May 2025, where 1,372 fake degrees/mark sheets and 262 counterfeit certificates were allegedly recovered, followed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) searches in November last year.
The petitioner also referred to a reported forged certificate network investigated by Kerala Police, an alleged fake pharmacy registration racket investigated by the Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch and an alleged racket involving fake Foreign Medical Graduate Examination certificates and fraudulent medical registrations investigated by the Rajasthan Police Special Operations Group in March 2026.
The plea clarified that the petitioner was not seeking adjudication of criminal guilt in any of those cases, but relied on them to argue that medical registration systems should incorporate stronger verification safeguards.
The petitioner had submitted a representation to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission on February 26, 2026, followed by a reminder on May 31, 2026, seeking measures for verification of medical qualifications and registrations.
The plea claimed that the representation had remained unanswered and that the continuing absence of a sufficiently reliable verification mechanism had compelled him to approach the Supreme Court.
The petitioner had sought a structural and preventive mandamus rather than cancellation of any individual registration, monitoring of criminal investigations or adjudication of medical negligence claims. The plea also sought that any verification, audit or adverse action be carried out in accordance with law, after notice, opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order, subject to statutory remedies.
(IANS)
