NEET PG 2025: MP High Court Permits Nine Foreign Medical Graduates To Appear In Exam Pending Decision On Increased Internship Period

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf in its order dictated:

“The learned Counsel appearing for the National Medical Commission submits that a short reply affidavit is proposed to be filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3. He submits that since the time was short, the original attested affidavit has not reached by post. He has produced the photocopy of the same. The same has been produced. Leave is granted to the counsel to file the short reply affidavit. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners who had undertaken one year of online course are being required to undergo two years additional internship in the name of clinical clerkship in addition to one year of compulsory internship. He submits that the petitioners instead of one year have undertaken two years of internship and as such have compensated for the online hands on training during the last year of their MBBS course in China. Learned Counsel for the National Medical Commission prays for time to file a detailed affidavit. Let the same be filed within three weeks. Re-notify on 19.06.2025. In the meantime, the petitioners are provisionally permitted to appear in the examination which is scheduled to be held on 15th June 2025. It is clarified that no special equity shall flow to the petitioner by this order and result of the petitioner shall not be declared without the leave of this Court.”

In its last order dated May 2, Court directed the State Medical Council to permit nine petitioner foreign graduates to fill NEET PG Exam 2025 online form for which application deadline was May 7.

During the hearing on May 19, Senior Counsel Aditya Sanghi appearing for the petitioners submitted, “The May 2025 notification of Uttar Pradesh also mentions internship period of 2 years. As far as the return of Medical Council of India (MCI) is concerned, they are pressing only on the notification of 2023. We completed before 30th June 2022.”

Senior Counsel Anoop Nair appearing for the National Medical Council submitted a printed copy of the reply sent through email and told the Court that the original copy is in transit.

At this stage the Court orally asked, “When is the exam?” to which the counsel said that it is on June 15. It further asked, “What is the direction of the Supreme Court? They have not opined on this two or three year issue?”

Nair submitted, “The Hon'ble Apex Court says that the affidavit given by Union of India, they take care of that. And we have specifically stated that because you're doing one-year course online…to compensate that two years of clinical clerkship and then 1 year of compulsory internship.”

The court then asked, “Tell us one thing, they had all gone to China. Assuming they had completed the course then how were they to be recognised by the Indian…”

Nair replied that then the students would have to  appear for Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate Exam. The Court asked, “That also they are required to do now?” to which Nair replied in affirmative.

The Counsel said, “One year they did online. To compensate, to have parity…It's a 5-year course. So if they have done 5 years in China, they would have come back, cleared that exam and done two years of internship?”

Nair said, “No, then it was not required. Then compulsory internship of one-year was required.”

The Court at this stage asked about the difference between clerkship and internship and if the graduates had completed five years "would there be no clerkship?”. 

To this Nair said, “No. If they had taken physical classes and completed MBBS then its not required.”

The Court said, “Then you're putting them one year back? What is the reason?” To this Nair said, “Because the final year is more on Hands-On approach and they have done online…”.

At this stage the court said, “We can understand. We ignore your 5th year because you have done online. So you do one year of internship plus exam and additionally one year. Now you're saying that additionally 2 years of clerkship. What is the logic behind that? It's not explained. You have a very valid point that you have lost on your last year of clinical exposure. You could say that instead of one, we give you two years of internship. Internship is exactly the same thing as clinical exposure. Now you're saying two years of clerkship. Clerkship you don't know what the meaning of clerkship…unless its internship.”

Thereafter, Nair told the court that he would seek clarification with regard to the clerkship.

The matter is listed for further hearing on June 19.

Case Title: Dr. Saurabh Raghuvanshi And Others And Others Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Writ Petition No. 547/2025 Along with Writ Petition No. 9545 Of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aditya Sanghi

Counsel for NMC: Senior Advocate Anoop Nair