"Look From A Humanitarian Angle" : Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Stand On China-Returnee Medical Graduates' Plea to Complete Clinical Training in India
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the stand of the Centre on a batch of petitions filed by students who were unable to complete clinical training in China due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and consequently, wanted to be accommodated within the Indian medical education architecture as an extraordinary, humanitarian measure. A Division Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath,...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the stand of the Centre on a batch of petitions filed by students who were unable to complete clinical training in China due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and consequently, wanted to be accommodated within the Indian medical education architecture as an extraordinary, humanitarian measure. A Division Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, was informed by Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu that despite a Bench led by Justice Hemant Gupta allowing repatriated Indian students of the batch 2015-20 to undergo clinical training in India and get provisionally registered, the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu had refused to extend similar relief to students of the batch 2016-21 who were hit by the same travel curbs. He submitted, "This court has held that the order passed in the other batch would also be applicable to our case. Therefore, the students who joined the medical course in China in 2016 should be given the same benefits. Several state medical councils have complied. Only Kerala and Tamil Nadu have refused. This is when we are covered by two judgements of this court."
The contention of the senior counsel was vehemently opposed by the advocate appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu state medical council, who said, "These students failed to secure admission in India and that is why they went abroad. How can Indian patients be allowed to be treated by these students? They are not technically qualified." Justice Gavai then asked, "Have they passed the examinations in the foreign colleges where they are admitted? Have they passed the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination?" In response, the counsel informed the court that the petitioners "claim" to have passed the screening test. Justice Gavai replied, "Then, we can restrict any relief to those who have passed the test."
Speaking about ambiguities in the scheme passed by the two states to allow the China-returnees to complete their clinical training in India, Justice Nath observed, "Either you say that the scheme covers both batches of students, or only students graduating in 2020. If it is the latter, where is the scheme for the students graduating in 2021?" Justice Gavai urged the state medical councils to be accommodative and said, "You have to look at this problem from a humanitarian angle. You have to find a solution." However, the counsel replied, "After 3 months, another batch will stand here. This is never-ending. How can we play with human lives like this?"
While the Additional Solicitor-General Aishwarya Bhati admitted that she had to take instructions before being able to comment on the Centre's policy stand with respect to this issue, she also said, "We are being circumspect because the license to become a doctor is not the license to treat but also to kill."
The bench also decided to separately hear a batch of pleas filed by Indian students, who had to return from Ukraine due to the war, seeking accommodation in Indian universities.
Earlier, in April, a Division Bench of the apex court had directed the National Medical Commission to frame a scheme to allow students of the batch 2015-20 who were unable to undergo their clinical training to complete it in medical colleges identified by the council, while hearing an appeal against a Madras High Court direction to allow such a student to be provisionally registered.
Case Title : Abin Philip George and others versus National Medical Commission WP(c) 1038/2022 and connected cases