The Wire: Ankit Raj New Delhi: Thursday, August 13, 2026.
In January 2026, the NMC withdrew the permission from the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Medical College, located in Jammu & Kashmir. However, in response to a query, the commission has said it possesses no specific document detailing the criteria to issue a warning versus altogether revoking permission.
On January 6, 2026, the National Medical Commission (NMC) withdrew permission to run the MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) program at the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME) in Katra, Jammu and Kashmir.
The action was taken amid protests from Bharatiya Janata Party-supported Hindutva organisations against the high number of Muslim students enrolled at the medical college, even though all admissions had been based on National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) merit.
In its order, the commission cited serious deficiencies related to the faculty, the infrastructure and clinical facilities. However, a recent response to a Right to Information (RTI) application has brought to light fresh concerns regarding the NMC's modus operandi, especially actions against medical colleges.
In its RTI reply, the commission stated that its records do not contain any specific document outlining the criteria for determining when permission can be promptly revoked, as opposed to directions concerning when a show-cause notice, a warning or a chance to rectify deficiencies within a specified timeframe should be issued.
What information was sought in the RTI?
The RTI application was filed with the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) of the NMC on July 1, 2026. It sought a total of 14 items of information about inspections of medical colleges, the deficiencies identified and the regulatory measures implemented against them over the past three years.
The Wire Hindi was able to access the RTI application and its response through RTI activist Kanhaiya Kumar. The final three points of the application sought the following information:
Out of the colleges identified in Point 1, a list of colleges where the Letter of Permission/renewal of permission was withdrawn, suspended, or cancelled by MARB in the last 3 years, along with the specific deficiencies/grounds cited in each such case.
Out of the colleges identified in Point 1, a list of colleges where the inspection report recorded one or more deficiencies similar to those at Point 2 to 11 above, but where the Letter of Permission/ recognition was NOT withdrawn, suspended, or cancelled – along with the reasons/justification recorded by MARB for continuing recognition despite such deficiencies.
Copies of the specific guidelines/criteria followed by MARB to decide whether a given deficiency (or combination of deficiencies) results in withdrawal of permission versus a show-cause notice/ warning/ time-bound compliance direction.
Questions asked in the RTI application.
While disposing of the RTI application on July 2, 2026, the NMC refused to furnish nearly all of the requested information. Its response stated:
"The information sought is not maintained by the MARB in the manner sought in the RTI application. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the CPIO is required to provide only such information as is available and existing on the records of the public authority. The Act does not cast any obligation upon the CPIO to create information, compile or collate data from various records, or furnish information in the format desired by an applicant. Accordingly, the information sought cannot be provided.
With regard to Point No. 14 of the RTI application, it is informed that no such specific information/document, as sought, is available on the records of this CPIO. However, the applicant may refer to the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the regulations framed thereunder, which are available in the public domain."
In other words, the existence of any distinct criteria (as requested in the RTI) for cancelling permission has been denied.
The response is especially significant as decisions about granting, renewing or revoking permission for medical colleges directly impact the futures of lakhs of students.
What does the NMC Act say?
The NMC, in its response, advised referring to the NMC Act, 2019. A study of the Act reveals that Sections 26, 28 and 29 authorise the MARB to conduct inspections and assessments of medical colleges, as well as to grant or deny permission for the establishment of new medical colleges or courses.
The Act additionally specifies the general criteria to be taken into account while making decisions regarding permissions. Section 26(1)(f) of the Act states:
“The Medical Assessment and Rating Board shall take such measures, including issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to the Commission for withdrawal of recognition, against a medical institution for failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the Under-Graduate Medical Education Board or the Post-Graduate Medical Education Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the regulation made under this Act.”
However, the Act fails to offer a definitive list, or quantitative criteria, explicitly outlining the percentage of deficiency, the extent of infrastructural inadequacy or the specific circumstances under which permission can be immediately withdrawn.
Thus, even though the law empowers the commission to take action, there exists no distinct public "decision matrix" or comprehensive set of guidelines about choosing from among different possible courses of action. This is precisely the concern raised by the RTI application.
Controversies surrounding the medical college
The NMC's decision to withdraw permission for the SMVDIME came at a time when the medical college was embroiled in an intense communal controversy. In September 2025, NMC granted permission to SMVDIME to commence an MBBS program with a capacity of 50 seats. Note that Section 28 of the NMC states:
"No person shall establish a new medical college or start any postgraduate course or increase number of seats without obtaining prior permission of the MARB. The MARB shall, having due regard for the criteria specified in section 29, consider the scheme received under sub-section (2) and either approve or disapprove such scheme within a period of six months from the date of such receipt… Provided that before disapproving such scheme, an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shall be given to the person concerned." SMVDIME had achieved this significant milestone.
Subsequently, Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examination published the merit-based admission list for the academic session 2025-2026. Of the 50 seats available, 42 were filled by Muslim students from Kashmir, seven by Hindu students and one by a Sikh student. All selections were made through NEET.
Nevertheless, soon after the release of the selection list, many Hindutva organisations started opposing the decision. They argued that the medical college was run by Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, which derives its revenue from Hindu devotees' offerings from across the country. Therefore, a majority of the seats should be reserved for Hindu students.
On November 22, 2025, nearly 60 Hindutva organisations formed the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Sangharsh Samiti, including various groups affiliated with Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and BJP. Initially, they sought the cancellation of admissions to Muslim students. However, the movement subsequently escalated to a demand for the complete closure of the medical college.
The group held multiple demonstrations, staged dharnas (sit-ins) outside the college and also warned of Jammu bandh (close) and chakka jam (roadblock). Bajrang Bagra, the General Secretary of VHP, also addressed a letter to Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha regarding the "religious imbalance and protection of religious sentiments." BJP leaders met the Lieutenant Governor and Union health minister J.P. Nadda and informed him about the agitators' demands.
On January 2, 2026, the MARB team carried out a surprise inspection of the college. Four days later, on January 6, the NMC issued an order withdrawing permission granted to the college. Regarding the controversy over the high number of Muslim students in the medical college, Amulya Nidhi, national convenor of Jan Swasthya Abhiyan-India, questioned the number of students who had applied for admission, demanding information about their religious identities.
Speaking to The Wire Hindi, Nidhi said, “Did those who sparked this debate try to find out how many of the applicants for nomination were Hindus and how many were Muslims? If out of 100 children applying to that college on the basis of NEET merit, 80 to 90 were Muslims, then it is likely that the majority of them would be selected.” He went on to say, "In a medical college located in a tribal region such as Chhattisgarh, the number of tribal students is likely to be higher due to their larger population and more applications. Now, if someone questions why there are more seats allocated to tribal students in that college, it makes no sense. It is reasonable for tribal people to get more seats in tribal-dominated areas or in the medical colleges of the state, which is also valid." What shortcomings did the NMC cite? According to media reports, the commission noted that the college had 39% fewer teachers than the prescribed standards and the number of tutors, demonstrators and senior residents was lacking by 65%.
In addition to this, the inspection revealed that the number of patients visiting the OPD was recorded to be less than half of the prescribed standard. The hospital’s bed occupancy was found to be only 45%, as opposed to the mandated 80%. On an average, only about 50% of the beds in the intensive care unit (ICU) were found to be filled. NMC also said certain departments lacked practical and research labs and lecture theatres did not meet the required minimum standards. The library had only half of the prescribed number of books and there were only two journals accessible instead of the expected fifteen. The commission claimed there was a lack of facilities, such as sufficient operation theatres and separate wards for male and female patients. Due to these purported deficiencies, the NMC withdrew the college’s permission and instructed that all 50 students from the 2025-2026 batch be placed in supernumerary seats at other government medical colleges in J&K. In addition, it ordered the encashment of the institute’s performance bank guarantee amounting to Rs 15 crore. Allegations denied by the college Officials and faculty members from the institute raised serious concerns regarding the NMC's findings.
They said the surprise inspection was carried out on January 2 during the winter break, a period when about 50% of the faculty was on leave. An official stated that the college received a phone call only 15 minutes prior to the arrival of the inspection team and efforts were made to contact the teachers who were on leave and ask them to return. Institute officials also challenged several statistics recorded in the NMC report. According to the Indian Express, an official asserted that the NMC documented 75 books and two journals in the library, while in reality, there were 2,713 books, 480 journals, 392 national e-journals and 9,900 foreign e-journals available there. Similarly, the institute claimed that there were eight operation theatres, as opposed to two recorded by the NMC. They also contested the finding regarding separate wards, saying that distinct rooms were available for indoor patients (those undergoing treatment).
Certain officials and faculty members also alleged that the inspection team’s approach was pre-determined. According to them, the team had already made up its mind to withdraw the permission before even arriving at the campus. They linked this stance to the ongoing protests against the college. The Wire Hindi reached out to Yashpal Sharma, executive director of SMVDIME, to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the NMC for withdrawing the 'letter of permission' were indeed valid. Sharma responded, “See, if it said that there are deficiencies, we cannot claim otherwise. We cannot challenge the regulator's decision. …The decision to challenge it rests with the top authority (institute's board). No such decision has been taken from that level." When asked about why they did not contest the NMC's ruling, Sharma said, "We did not challenge it because we accepted it." Moreover, the organisation did not get a change to present its case before the NMC. "We were not even issued a notice. It was cancelled outright,” said Sharma. He added, "Many decisions are taken keeping multiple interests in mind. You are also aware that the circumstances were not normal at that time." ‘NMC's functioning is not transparent' Nidhi said the NMC has a prescribed procedure for granting approval to medical colleges.
He explained that a team conducts an inspection of the college and permission is granted after evaluating all the necessary parameters. Regular monitoring is performed, which may happen periodically or in response to any complaints. He also questioned the decision to withdraw the permission based on the deficiencies pointed out by the NMC. Citing the example of Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (MPPEB) Vyapam scam, he said, 'The Vyapam scam occurred in Madhya Pradesh, and the case is still going on. However, the medical colleges continue to operate. Why is the NMC not withdrawing the permission for those colleges until the case is resolved?
He demanded whether the license of any medical college ought to be cancelled due to the deficiencies pointed out. “A notice can be issued for a shortage of books, or an insufficient number of teachers, and ask for the identified deficiencies to be rectified within the stipulated time. This is the standard procedure,” he said. "Moreover, if the deficiencies were indeed so severe that the license needed to be withdrawn then the team which conducted the investigation and granted the letter of permission to the college should also be dismissed. Given that the permission was given only three or four months ago, how could such a serious deficiency arise in such a short time? Also, if permission was given despite the deficiencies, then the investigating team should be subject to scrutiny," said Nidhi. “If licenses have been cancelled on the basis of shortage of teachers, then the licenses of the majority of private medical colleges in the country should be revoked.
What is the situation regarding faculty in government medical colleges? Let the government release the figures and everything will become clear," he arrested, while questioning if there were any complaints made by students against SMVDIME. Nidhi raised contentions about the selected day for the inspection as January 2, 2026, was a Friday and coincided with the birth anniversary of Prophet Mohammed. "Friday holds significant importance for Muslims. Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim-dominated area, and it is possible that the teachers had gone to offer Namaz. Patients also avoid visiitng the hospital that day. In the afternoon, the atmosphere resembles a holiday due to the Friday prayers. More influx of patients is observed in the hospital on Sundays compared to Fridays," he said.
He demanded the commission to release a list of inspections conducted over the last year and provide details about the same, a question that was also raised by Kumar in his RTI application. "The processes of NMC are not transparent, whether it pertains to granting permission, monitoring or revoking licences," said Nidhi, emphasising that medical colleges located in sensitive regions like Kashmir should be expanded rather than shut down. "Students in that area already face limited access to education. The number of educational institutions is insufficient. This is unethical," he said
It is noteworthy that shortly after the NMC's decision, many Hindutva organisations, including the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Sangharsh Samiti, the Rashtriya Bajrang Dal and the Yuva Rajput Sabha, proclaimed it a victory, distributing sweets and holding celebrations across Jammu. Retired Colonel Sukhveer Singh Mankotia, who serves as the convener of the Sangharsh Committee, described the outcome as a success of his 45-day campaign and expressed his gratitude to Union health minister J.P. Nadda and the central leadership.
BJP leaders also welcomed the NMC’s decision. J&K BJP president Sat Sharma said it was natural for any institution that failed to meet the NMC's standards to have its recognition revoked. BJP MLA R.S. Pathania called it "a step towards ensuring quality." Meanwhile, J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah criticised those celebrating the decision. He pointed out that other parts of the country were struggling to establish medical colleges, whereas, in Jammu, the closure of a medical college was being celebrated. He further demanded that on what basis was the permission granted to the college in the first place few months ago if it did not meet the standards and who would take responsibility of the supposed lapse
The first student to enrol at SMVDIME, also expressed displeasure over the celebration, "The closure of the college represents not only a loss for many students, but a huge setback for the entire Jammu and Kashmir region. A commendable new college had been established with excellent infrastructure. To celebrate after such a huge loss is shameful and pathetic."
When asked if the deficiencies cited by the NMC really exist, he replied, "No, it was nothing like that. If the same inspection which was done in this college is carried out regularly in other GMCs (Government Medical Colleges), then many GMCs will be closed. We are medical students, we know the conditions there (medical colleges)." Manit believes that SMVDIME was 'targeted.' Fresh questions raised on regulatory action The primary concern has shifted from merely assessing whether SMVDIME had deficiencies to understanding how the NMC determines whether to revoke permission or to allow an opportunity for improvement.
The RTI sought a copy of the specific guidelines or criteria for the same. However, the commission advised the applicant to refer to the NMC Act, 2019, instead. The 2019 Act empowers the MARB to inspect medical colleges, ensure compliance with the prescribed standards and, if necessary, take regulatory action such as issuing warnings, imposing fines, reducing or halting admissions and withdrawing permissions.
However, there is no such public criterion that defines what specific action will be taken. Similarly, the Minimum Standard Requirements (MSR) regulations for medical colleges specify the required number of faculty members for a college with 50 seats, the number of hospital beds, the daily OPD patient load, the quantity of books and journals available in the library, as well as other essential infrastructure.
These regulations do not explicitly detail the repercussions of not achieving a particular standard – particularly, if such a shortfall would lead to immediate revocation or an opportunity for rectification. This is precisely why the RTI response prompted regulatory inquiry. In the absence of a separate public document, what grounds had been used to differentiate between the various types of actions taken against medical colleges, such as issuing show-cause notices, warnings, directives for time-bound compliance or the outright withdrawal of permission? To seek greater clarity,
The Wire Hindi has emailed a list of detailed questions to Raghav Langer, the secretary of the NMC. This report will be updated if he responds. Translated from Hindi by Naushin Rehman. This article was originally published on The Wire Hindi.
This article went live on August twelfth, two thousand twenty six, at fifty-one minutes past five in the evening. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
