loader image

SC Refuses to Entertain White Medical College’s Plea to Access ADR Login Credentials for Renewal Process

SC Refuses to Entertain White Medical College’s Plea to Access ADR Login Credentials for Renewal Process

The White Medical College and Hospital (formerly known as Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital) v. National Medical Commission & Anr. [Order dated June 23, 2026]

Medical College Renewal Process

The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a writ petition filed by the White Medical College and Hospital, and granted liberty to the institution to approach the High Court for appropriate relief concerning its renewal process.

The petitioner-college contended that it had been unable to complete the statutory renewal formalities because the authorities had not provided the necessary ADR (Annual Declaration Report) login credentials, which were required to submit annual compliance declarations. Counsel argued that the college was not seeking permission for a new institution but merely an opportunity to participate in the renewal process in accordance with the applicable regulations.

Earlier, due to chronic infrastructure and faculty deficiencies at the medical college, the National Medical Commission ordered an en bloc student transfer. During the hearing, counsel submitted that the last date for compliance had expired on June 10 and expressed apprehension that the institution would be denied the opportunity to continue admissions if the issue was not addressed urgently.

The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, questioned the maintainability of the relief sought under Article 32 and observed:

“How can you, in an Article 32 petition, seek commencement of the admissions in a medical college? You should make a representation for the inspection and for the permission…”

When the petitioner argued that authorities might subsequently reject the request on the ground of delay, the Court reiterated that the appropriate remedy lay before the High Court. The Bench also noted:

“For three years you have been denied the accommodation. So there is no utmost urgency.”

Faced with the Court’s reluctance to entertain the matter under Article 32, counsel agreed to withdraw the petition and seek relief under Article 226. Recording the submission, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with liberty to approach the High Court.