Listen to this article:

New Delhi: 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Out of the colleges identified in Point 1, a list of colleges where the Letter of Permission/renewal of permission was withdrawn, suspended, or cancelled by MARB in the last 3 years, along with the specific deficiencies/grounds cited in each such case.

Out of the colleges identified in Point 1, a list of colleges where the Letter of Permission/renewal of permission was withdrawn, suspended, or cancelled by MARB in the last 3 years, along with the specific deficiencies/grounds cited in each such case.

Out of the colleges identified in Point 1, a list of colleges where the Letter of Permission/renewal of permission was withdrawn, suspended, or cancelled by MARB in the last 3 years, along with the specific deficiencies/grounds cited in each such case.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

“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 Wire