0
0
Chandigarh, May 14, 2025:
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasized that courts must exercise utmost caution before intervening in educational standards established by statutory authorities such as the National Medical Commission (NMC). The decision came while denying relief to a group of MBBS students seeking retrospective relaxation in the pass percentage for their exams.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, MBBS students whose results were declared on August 18, 2023, requested that the benefit of a revised NMC notification dated September 1, 2023-lowering the aggregate pass percentage from 50% to 40% in subjects with two papers-be applied to their results retrospectively. However, the NMC had clarified in a subsequent notice on October 3, 2023, that this relaxation would not have retrospective effect.
Key Observations by the High Court
The High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumit Goel, carefully examined whether the notification should be applied retrospectively or prospectively. The bench noted that while decisions from other High Courts, such as the Kerala and Madras High Courts, may have persuasive value, they do not serve as binding precedents outside their respective jurisdictions.
“A decision by a High Court, particularly one delivered after detailed analysis and reasoned interpretation, may enjoy high persuasive authority, but it does not operate as a precedent in the sense of binding on other High Courts,” the bench remarked.
The court further clarified that only Supreme Court judgments are binding on all courts across India, in accordance with Article 141 of the Constitution. High Courts, by contrast, exercise jurisdiction within their defined territorial areas and are not bound by each other’s decisions.
Public Welfare and Educational Standards
In its detailed reasoning, the High Court underscored the importance of maintaining high standards in medical education, noting that public welfare and safety must take precedence over individual hardships. The court stated:
“Individual difficulties, no matter how sympathetic, cannot outweigh the collective good, which requires strict professional standards.”
The bench also highlighted that the MBBS program is a highly specialized and professional discipline, necessitating rigorous qualifying standards to serve both individual and public interests.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the NMC’s decision to apply the revised pass percentage criteria prospectively and not retrospectively. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should defer to the expertise of statutory authorities in matters concerning educational standards, especially when such standards are designed to protect public welfare.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on information reported by Medical Dialogues and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or an official statement from the Punjab and Haryana High Court or the National Medical Commission. For official rulings and guidance, please refer to the respective authorities.
Citations:
