Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Verification Mechanism To Prevent Fake Doctors, Medical Degrees

The PIL, filed by Advocate N.K. Goswami under Article 32 of the Constitution, sought directions to the National Medical Commission (NMC) to disclose the verification mechanism presently undertaken before a person is recognised or permitted to practise as a medical professional.

During the hearing, the Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and NK Goswami questioned the manner in which public interest petitions were being drafted and filed.

“Why? You draft petitions like this and file… Is it for advertisement or popularity?” the Court remarked, questioning whether such petitions were being filed to gain publicity.

Justice PS Narasimha also questioned the practice of filing PILs immediately after issues appeared in newspapers. The Court observed that such petitions could be drafted and filed easily and may attract publicity.

Goswami submitted that the petition concerned the life and safety of patients and dealt with fake doctors and forged medical degrees. He stated that the petition was his second PIL and had been filed in June. “A fake medical degree in the hands of a person is not merely a paper form… it is a loaded weapon placed inside a hospital,” Goswami submitted, stressing the potential consequences for patient safety.

The petitioner, however, clarified that he was not pressing the larger prayers at this stage and restricted his submissions to Prayer E. The prayer sought disclosure from the NMC regarding the verification presently undertaken before a person is recognised or permitted to practise as a medical professional.

Goswami referred to material relied upon in the petition and submitted that a report suggested that one out of every four doctors may be fake.

The Court ultimately dismissed the petition.

PIL sought enforcement of existing medical registration framework

The petition stated that it was filed in public interest for enforcement of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, along with the statutory framework under Sections 27, 31, 33, 34 and 57 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

It raised the question of whether a person could be permitted to enter, remain in or continue in the medical profession on the basis of qualifications that had not undergone a reliable, auditable and fraud-resistant verification process.

The petitioner argued that the right to life under Article 21 included the right to safe, competent and lawfully qualified medical treatment. It was submitted that the State could not expose patients to treatment by persons whose qualifications were forged, doubtful, unverified or fraudulently procured.

The PIL stated that it did not seek the creation of a new policy through judicial legislation, but enforcement of the existing statutory architecture.

According to the petition, Section 27 entrusts the Ethics and Medical Registration Board with maintaining the National Register of licensed medical practitioners, while Section 31 provides for the National Medical Register, including its maintenance, electronic form, publication and synchronisation with State Medical Registers.

Sections 33 and 34 were relied upon to contend that registration and a licence to practise constitute the legal gateway for lawful medical practice, while Section 57 empowers the framing of regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act.

The petitioner argued that these provisions collectively require a system of lawful qualification, verified registration, licensing, public accessibility and exclusion of unauthorised practice.

Petition referred to alleged fake qualification rackets

The petition referred to several incidents involving alleged fake academic and professional qualifications. It stated that the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force had raided Monad University in Hapur in May 2025 and reportedly recovered 1,372 fake degrees or mark sheets and 262 counterfeit certificates. It also referred to Enforcement Directorate searches in November 2025.

The petition further mentioned a forged certificate network allegedly busted by the Kerala Police in December 2025, involving more than one lakh forged certificates linked to several universities. It also referred to an alleged fake pharmacy registration racket busted by the Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch in April 2025, involving 47 persons, including a former employee of the Delhi Pharmacy Council.

The petition placed particular emphasis on an alleged racket relating to fake Foreign Medical Graduate Examination certificates and fraudulent medical registrations. It stated that the Rajasthan Police Special Operations Group arrested the former Registrar of the Rajasthan Medical Council and the former Nodal Officer of the Council in March 2026 in connection with the matter.

The petitioner clarified that the PIL did not seek a finding of criminal guilt in that case. Instead, it relied on the incident to argue that allegations of fake medical registration reaching the office responsible for medical registration demonstrated the need for a fraud-resistant and auditable verification mechanism.

The petition also referred to the affidavit of Neha Singh as illustrative material concerning the harm that could arise when patients were unable to verify whether persons treating them were duly qualified and lawfully registered. It clarified that the affidavit was not being relied upon as a claim for individual compensation or as a substitute for civil, criminal, consumer or disciplinary remedies.

PIL sought Uniform Verification Architecture

The petitioner sought a limited and preventive mandamus for the creation and enforcement of a uniform verification architecture for medical registration in India. It stated that it did not seek cancellation of any particular registration without due process, monitoring of criminal investigations or adjudication of individual medical negligence claims.

It further submitted that any verification audit or adverse action should be conducted after notice, an opportunity of hearing, a reasoned order and availability of statutory appeal, except where interim protective action was necessary to prevent demonstrable public risk.

The petitioner argued that the PIL was maintainable under Article 32 because the alleged violation was pan-India, continuing and systemic, and could not be effectively addressed by a single High Court against the Union Government, the NMC and State Medical Councils.

The petition also stated that representations had been submitted to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the NMC on February 26, 2026, followed by a reminder on May 31, 2026. According to the petitioner, the representations remained unanswered.

The petition maintained that its principal relief was confined to medical qualifications and medical registration under the NMC Act. The Indian Nursing Council was impleaded only as a proper and pro forma party for the limited purpose of enabling consideration of whether a similar verification architecture was required for nursing and allied health professionals.

The petition concluded that the medical register must be genuine, verified, synchronised, auditable and publicly reliable to protect the right to life.