MP High Court Rejects Plea Against Making Biology Mandatory In 12th Standard For Admission To General Nursing & Midwifery Courses

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Friday (July 11), dismissed a batch of public interest litigations challenging the amendment to admission eligibility criteria for the General Nursing and Midwifery Courses (G&M course) under the Madhya Pradesh Upcharika, Prasavika, Sahai Upcharika-Prasavika Tatha Swasthya Paridarkshak Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1972 Act.

The petitioners questioned the validity of Schedule 1 serial no 2 of the amended rules, which effectively mandated passing biology and other science subjects in class 12 examinations for admission in the aforementioned course. The petitioner contended that such prescription of specific subjects, which were only 'preferable' per the INC rules for admission, exceeded the power conferred upon the State Government. 

The bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal held, "Though in this case, the petitioners raised the challenge only to the eligibility criteria for the G&M course. Under the circumstances, the court holds that the State was well within its competence to prescribe standards for the G&M course, which have not diluted the standards set by the Indian Nursing Council but which the State feels are essential to ensure higher quality of G&M".

The court further emphasised, "Those who are trained in G&M would act as midwives who would be called upon to deal with emergencies related to childbirth and maternal and fetal distress during childbirth in rural and remote corners of the State. Though the Nursing Council of India is the expert body has relaxed the admission of students to nursing courses coming even from other streams, for the G&M course. However, the State, on the other hand, has thought otherwise and has insisted that those who opt for this course must necessarily come from a science background".

The petitioners contended that such courses are governed by the Indian Nursing Council (INC), which did not mandate the aforementioned subjects. Per the council's norms, any student with a Class 12 certificate was eligible for admission, with physics, biology and chemistry being desirable subjects. It did not exclude non-science stream students from seeking admission. The students with the science stream in Class 12 were merely preferred. 

The petitioners contended that the State is not empowered to prescribe specific subjects, especially since it conflicts with the standards laid down by the INC. The Petitioners argued that by making biology mandatory, the State had unlawfully excluded a large section of eligible students who would otherwise qualify under the INC guidelines. 

Relying on Entry 66 of List 1 of the constitution, the petitioners contended that only the central government have legislative competence to prescribe education standards for technical and medical education. Further, the petitioners referred to Sections 24 and 36 of the 1972 Act to argue that the role of the State Government and Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council was limited to registration and recognition of training institutes and professionals. Determining the eligibility criteria, the petitioners argued, was beyond its scope. 

The counsel represented INC partially supported the petitioner's claims, arguing that the State has the power to increase the minimum percentage requirement but are not empowered to alter the basic subject eligibility. INC submitted that the minimum qualification norms were within the exclusive domain of the central authority and that the State cannot restrict access based on subjects not mandated by INC. 

The State referred to Entry 25 of List 3 of the Constitution, which empowers the state to legislate on education, including technical and medical education, subject to Entry 66 of List 1. It was argued that the amendment to the rules to include biology as a mandatory subject was aimed at improving the standards of public health.

The court noted that per the report of 2025 drafted by the Registrar General of India of May 7, 2025, Madhya Pradesh recorded a Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) of 15 per 1,000 live births. Noting that the MMR of the State is double that of the national average, the bench held that the same could be the aggravating factors that led to the amendment of the rules. 

The court further examined the syllabus and curriculum of the G&M course and observed that the majority of the subjects were science-based. Acknowledging that the students who have completed Class 12 with a science background are better equipped to grasp such training, the court observed:

"The syllabus reflects a preponderance of science-based subjects where the state feels that it would be more beneficial if students having knowledge of science in the 12th class, may be better suited to absorb to understand the training imparted". 

The court noted that the subject matter in the present petition related to public health, which is a State subject. Further, the bench refers to Article 47 of the Constitution, which empowers the State to duly improve public health. The bench, however, opined, "The same  (Article 47) read in conjunction with Entry 25 of List 3, it cannot be held that the state has no say in matters relating to technical education and setting of standards which though compliant of the standards set by INC, in effect as more stringent". 

The bench also highlighted that inadequate public health infrastructure would ultimately render the government accountable to its citizens and therefore, the state is entitled to prescribe standards, provided they do not dilute those set by the INC. 

Noting that the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v Adhiyaman Educational & Research does not apply to the present case, the court held that education in nursing, healthcare and medicine cannot be equated with technical education. The court, thus, dismissed the petition. 

Case Title: Lal Bahadur Shastri Vyavasayik Adhyayan Mahavidyalaya v State of Madhya Pradesh (WP - 1427/2025)