Dubious retreat

Why in the News

Faculty members and administrators of undergraduate medical colleges no longer face personal fines of up to ₹5 lakh for submitting false information; only institutions can now be fined. The National Medical Commission (NMC) has denotified its 2023 Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations (MSMER), saying they duplicated the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB). Unless the NMC shows the MARB is using its powers, the move looks like regulatory relaxation.

What was the MSMER, and why did it matter?

1. What it is: The MSMER set penalties for medical colleges that fell short on educational standards or infrastructure. It worked like a traffic fine on the driver, not only on the vehicle’s owner.
2. Why it was introduced: It targeted deep-seated corruption in medical colleges, especially “ghost faculty” and “ghost patients”, teachers and patients shown on paper but not actually present.
3. Individual liability: It made faculty members and administrators personally answerable for false information, not only the college.
4. Appeal timelines: It also specified clear timelines for appealing penalties.
5. The takeaway: Withdrawing it removes the rule that made the person who falsifies records pay for it.

Why did the NMC withdraw it, and does the reason hold?

1. NMC’s justification: The MSMER created a parallel mechanism letting the undergraduate and postgraduate boards evaluate institutions, overlapping the MARB’s role.
2. MARB’s remaining power: The MARB can still fine errant institutions up to ₹1 crore under the 2023 Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations.
3. Postgraduate exception: The 2023 Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations remain in force and allow fines on individual faculty at postgraduate colleges.
4. Wholesale repeal: Why the NMC scrapped the entire MSMER, rather than only the overlapping evaluation mechanism, is unclear.

Why does fining only institutions weaken enforcement?

1. Harder to penalise: Penalising an institution is harder than fining an individual, so regulators face a perverse incentive to accommodate rather than punish.
2. Loss of deterrence: Without personal fines, administrators lose the fear of penalty that keeps them honest.
3. Unchecked non-compliance: Non-compliance among medical colleges is common and seldom stopped early, even as medical seats multiply without greater transparency.

Is the MARB actually using its powers?

1. Appeal deadline conflict: The MARB regulations allow 15 days to appeal, which could conflict with the 60-day period under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. Legal disputes could then delay penal action.
2. RTI disclosure: A Central Information Commission (CIC) hearing, the appeal stage under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, revealed an NMC statement from 2024. It said the MARB had neither formally assessed nor rated colleges.
3. Missing reports: The NMC had also said the MARB’s standard forms need not be public. In a revised reply in October 2025, the NMC said its records held none of the matching assessment reports.
4. Publication duty: The 2023 MARB regulations require the Board to publish its latest annual assessment results.

Challenges

1. Enforcement gap: Those who falsify records at undergraduate colleges now face little personal risk.
2. Opaque assessment: The public cannot verify whether MARB assessments are happening or what they find.
3. Weak regulator image: A regulator seen as lax on standards loses credibility with students, colleges and patients.

Way Forward

1. Targeted repeal: The NMC should restore individual fines for false information and drop only the overlapping evaluation mechanism.
2. Harmonised appeal periods: The NMC should align the MARB’s appeal deadline with the period set by its parent Act.
3. Published assessments: The MARB should publish its annual assessment results, as its own regulations require.

Conclusion

Medical college oversight now rests on a Board whose record of assessing colleges is unverified. Whether the MARB publishes its results and penalises errant institutions will show if the NMC is simplifying regulation or relaxing it.

Back2Basics: National Medical Commission

1. Origin: The NMC replaced the Medical Council of India (MCI), which was elected by doctors themselves, to separate regulation from vested interests.
2. Mandate: It regulates medical education, licensing and standards of medical practice.
3. Four boards: The Under Graduate, Post Graduate, Medical Assessment and Rating, and Ethics and Medical Registration boards divide functions once concentrated in one body.

Matching Previous Year Question

“No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Thematic PYQ: [2015, GS2, 12 marks] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.”