Libertatem Magazine

Delhi High Court refuses to modify the Circular issued by the Medical Council of India

Contents of this Page

In the case of Ojasvini Agrawal v Union of India, Ojasvini Agarwal filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. The petitioner filed the writ under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The filing is against the issuing of Advisory by the MCI on 7th April 2020. The Advisory deals with the completion of 12 Months of Internship by Medical Graduates. Due to the extraordinary situation of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the MCI issued the advisory. 

Contentions of the Petitioner 

The petitioner submitted that the above Advisory is violative of Article 14. Since candidates who started the internship last year were not given an extention. They were supposed to complete it by 31 March 2020. 

The petitioner undertook the NEET PG Examination 2020. She has to submit a completion certificate of Internship. This Certificate is important for admission to postgraduate medical courses in different colleges.

But, the petitioner fell ill, hence, had to drop out of her internship. She was diagnosed with Upper Respiratory Tract Infection (URTI) on 2 March 2020. On her condition improving, the petitioner recommenced her internship on 20th March 2020. She completed the Internship on 30th April 2020.

In view of the mandate under NEET PG 2020, the petitioner was ineligible for admission to any PG course. It was mandatory for her to complete the internship on or before 31 March 2020.

On 2 April 2020, owing to the pandemic, the Medical Council of India released the said advisory. Thus, this petition. 

Contentions of the Respondent 

The respondent argued that the petitioner was not eligible for any relief. The inability was on her part to complete the internship by 31st March 2020. The COVID- 19 Pandemic had no relation to her case. 

The illness she developed in February 2020 and later in March 2020, was not due to the pandemic. Thus, the petitioner’s decision not to resume the internship was her own. Hence it did not act as consideration for relief. 

Court’s Observation

The Court said that changing the Circular/Advisory is beyond its jurisdiction. The Court was under no compulsion under Article 226 to grant relief to the petitioner. The Court finally said that the writ petition is incapable of merit and does not follow the above findings. Thus, rejected. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author