The Delhi High Court has upheld the mandatory requirement for authentication of foreign medical degrees as a prerequisite for eligibility to appear in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE). A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed a writ petition filed by Indian citizens who had pursued medical education abroad and were denied permission to sit for the FMGE on grounds of non-compliance with authentication norms.
The petitioners challenged Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002, which stipulates that a foreign medical qualification must be confirmed by the concerned Indian Embassy as a qualification recognised for enrolment as a medical practitioner in the country where the institution is situated. They also contested Clause 2.14 of the FMGE Information Bulletin, which requires foreign medical degrees to be either attested by the Indian Embassy or apostilled by the appropriate authority of the foreign country in accordance with the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961.
The Court found no merit in the plea, stating that the authentication process does not cause prejudice to any candidate and is essential to ensure the integrity of the examination. It emphasized that verification of documents submitted by candidates claiming eligibility on the basis of such qualifications is necessary to enable the examination conducting body to exclude those seeking to appear on the basis of fake or false educational qualifications.
“Authentication of a document submitted by any candidate claiming his eligibility on the basis of said document, in our opinion, is necessary so as to enable the examination conducting body to be in a position to exclude those candidates from appearing in the examination who seek their appearance on the basis of fake or false educational qualifications,” the Bench observed.
The Court further held that requiring attestation by the Embassy of India or apostillation under the Hague Convention does not cause prejudice to any candidate and therefore any challenge to such a clause in the Information Bulletin must fail. It noted that the process is merely a means of authenticating the foreign medical qualification and does not impose an unreasonable burden on applicants.
In addressing the challenge to Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002, the Bench held that the exclusion of foreign medical institutions not recognised by the Indian Embassy was based on relevant considerations and expert opinion. It observed that where an expert body entrusted with regulating medical education takes a considered view based on its experience, judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would not permit interference unless the prescription is found to be absolutely arbitrary.
“Exclusion of such institutions by substituting the impugned Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 vide notification dated 26.09.2009, in our opinion, is based on the consideration of relevant factors by the respondent no.1, which appears to be based on experience of the respondent no.1 while regulating the medical education in India and, therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference in the said Regulation, which is based on expert opinion, is warranted,” the Court stated.
The Bench concluded that the impugned provisions are statutory in nature and serve a legitimate purpose in maintaining the credibility of the FMGE. It dismissed the petition, affirming that the authentication requirement is both reasonable and necessary to safeguard the standards of medical practice in India.