Delayed Publication of the Rule:
447 MBBS graduates who disagreed with a rule demanding them to do mandatory rural service and execute bonds to that effect were provided with relief by the Karnataka High Court. The court deemed the ruling published in the official gazette a decade after its initial release.
Clarification for Future MBBS Students:
In the ruling dated April 22, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “The amended rule was supposed to take effect on the date of publication in the Official Gazette, which occurred on July 22, 2022, ten years after the rule was created.” He stated that the state seemed to have ignored or been unaware of this for ten years.
Importance of Rural Service:
But the court made it clear that MBBS students enrolled in government quota colleges after July 22, 2022. Would still have to do the mandatory rural service and execute the necessary bonds.
Also read: Career After NEET: Exploring Top Medical Courses in Detail
Judge Nagaprasanna emphasized the crucial role of these students in improving public health in rural, tribal, and difficult areas, especially given their heavily subsidized education.
Hope for Voluntary Service:
To create a society with greater equity, the court expressed hope that medical graduates will eventually volunteer in rural regions. MBBS graduates filed the case challenging a June 2021 notification. That mandated them to execute bonds and serve in rural areas.
This notification amended Rule 11 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006, imposing fines of ₹15–30 lakh for violating the bond.
Legal Arguments and Counterarguments:
The petitioners said that Rule 11 was unconstitutional. And that the state did not have the right to announce it, using the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act as their primary power source. They also argued that the bonds were invalid since they were executed when they were minors.
The Court’s Decision and Legislative Competence:
In response, the state referenced Bushra Abdul Aleem v. Government of Karnataka, an earlier case in which the same problems were discussed. The NMC Act does not prohibit the state from regulating education under entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. According to the High Court, which maintained the state’s legislative power,.
When the regulation was maintained. The court partially accepted the problem by declaring the corrigendum illegal for the petitioners in this case.
Representation and Legal Teams:
A group of experienced and skilled lawyers, led by BC Thiruvengadam and KG Raghavan, represented the petitioners in the case. The legal teams representing the Union of India, the State of Karnataka, the NMC, the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health and Sciences, and the Karnataka Medical Council were also present.
