Bombay HC controversial decision denies revoking doctor’s MBBS admission despite allegations of ‘false’ information

Highlighting India’s acute shortage of medical professionals, the Bombay HC controversial decision to grant a medical degree to a student who had been admitted to an MBBS program under misleading circumstances in 2012. The student, who had secured a seat reserved for the Other Backward Class (OBC) non-creamy layer using misleading information, was allowed to keep her degree despite the fraudulent admission process.

The court acknowledged that India needs doctors and said that taking away a doctor’s degree would result in one less doctor to serve the population Justices A S Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain, who were handling the case, said that India doesn’t have enough doctors for its population. They believed that revoking the doctor’s qualification would worsen the situation for the country.

Penalty for Unfair Admission

The student’s degree was upheld by the court, but it was found that her parents had used dishonest means to secure her admission, which deprived another deserving candidate of the opportunity. The High Court expressed concern that building a medical career on deceitful grounds would tarnish the field’s reputation.

Bombay HC Controversial Decision: Student Penalized for False Information on OBC Status

As a penalty, the court ordered the student to pay the tuition fees applicable to the general category, along with a fine of Rs 50,000. The court also supported the Mumbai suburban collector’s decision to cancel the non-creamy layer certificate given to the student, Lubna Mujawar. Although her admission to the Lokmanya Tilak Medical College at Sion was initially revoked in February 2014, she was allowed to continue her studies due to an interim order.

In its final judgment, the High Court ruled that since the student had completed her studies by 2017, it would be unjust to deny her the degree now, especially since she has met the qualifications to practice as a doctor. The court also criticized the student’s father for providing false information and concealing the fact that the student’s mother was employed by a municipal corporation.

During the 2012 hearing, Mujawar defended her father’s decision to not include her mother’s income on the certificate, claiming that they were divorced. However, the prosecution argued that her father had falsely claimed that they were not living together in order to remain below the Rs 4.5 lakh income threshold required for non-creamy OBC status.

You might also be interested in – Right to sleep a basic human requirement: Bombay HC