The Lift Line
“Unless the NMC has satisfactory answers for all these lacunae, the withdrawal will appear less like simplification and more like regulatory relaxation.” (Editorial, The Hindu, 27 October 2026)
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
In the news: The Hindu’s editorial of 27 October 2026, “Dubious retreat”, criticises the National Medical Commission (NMC) for withdrawing the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (MSMER), and asks whether the powers left in their place are being used.
For context, the NMC’s de-notification is dated 14 October 2026 and was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on 16 October 2026, taking effect on publication. See also this site’s pieces on the National Dental Commission (March 2026) and on NEET-UG 2026 (May 2026).
GS Paper 2: issues relating to the development and management of social sector services (health, education); statutory, regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies; transparency and accountability in governance.
The Crux in 60 Words
The NMC has scrapped its 2023 regulations on maintaining standards in medical colleges, which let it fine faculty and administrators personally for false information. The Hindu says penalising only institutions is weaker, the appeal deadlines may conflict, and it doubts that MARB’s assessments are being done and published. Without answers, it warns, simplification looks like regulatory relaxation.
The Hindu argues that by withdrawing the MSMER wholesale, the NMC has weakened the penalty framework for medical colleges, above all personal fines for false information, and must show that the powers it says exist elsewhere are actually used and made public.
- The MSMER let the regulator fine faculty members and administrators who submitted false information, a check on ‘ghost faculty’ and ‘ghost patients’; the MARB regulations fine institutions only.
- Penalising only institutions is harder, the editorial says, and risks a perverse incentive to accommodate rather than punish, weakening the fear that keeps administrators honest.
- The appeal deadline in the MARB regulations is far shorter than the period the NMC Act allows, a gap the editorial says could breed legal disputes that delay penal action.
- The editorial cites an RTI proceeding in which, it says, the NMC stated in 2024 that MARB had neither formally assessed nor rated medical colleges, though the 2023 MARB regulations require the Board to publish its latest annual assessment results.
One assessment track may be better than two: the NMC Act makes MARB the body that assesses, rates and penalises institutions, the annual disclosure duty continues under the Act, pending cases continue under the old rules, and the NMC said its aim was to eliminate overlapping regulatory procedures.
Publish MARB’s assessments and ratings as its regulations require; align the appeal deadlines with the Act; set out how individuals who file false records will be held to account; and state reasons whenever a regulation is withdrawn.
Background and Context
What was withdrawn
- The MSMER: notified on 19 September 2023 and published in the Gazette on 21 September 2023, under Sections 10, 24, 25 and 57 of the NMC Act.
- In force: the de-notification says: “This Notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.”
- What continues: “the requirement of furnishing the Annual Disclosure Report (ADR) shall continue to operate in accordance with Section 24(i) and 25(h) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the regulations applicable from time to time.”
- Saving clause: actions, orders and rights under the old regulations stand, and pending applications, proceedings and appeals continue under them; any matter arising on or after the de-notification is governed by the NMC Act and the provisions then in force.
- Reasons: the notification states none. Business Standard reported on 23 October 2026: “The NMC says its decision is intended to eliminate overlapping regulatory procedures, with the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) retaining its statutory authority to inspect institutions, verify compliance and take action against colleges that fail to meet prescribed standards.”
What the MSMER provided
The MSMER required each medical institution to file an annual disclosure report and let the NMC’s boards, individually or collectively, have its accuracy and truth evaluated; this is what the editorial calls a “parallel mechanism”. Failing to supply, within the time set, information or documents a board sought on the report was non-compliance that attracted a penalty. Besides monetary penalties on institutions, it provided for a penalty of up to ₹5 lakh on the faculty member, head of department, dean, director or doctor who submitted a false declaration, documents or records (including patient records). Penalties could be appealed to the NMC within sixty days, and then to the Central Government.
What remains: the MARB Regulations, 2023
The Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023 (the MARB Regulations) stay in force. They provide for a “Monetary penalty not exceeding INR one crore per every non-compliance committed by the medical institution”. They require MARB to “make available on its website or otherwise in the public domain the latest annual assessment results and ratings of medical colleges or medical institutions”. Institutions file their Compulsory Annual Disclosure Report with the UGMEB and/or PGMEB, with a copy to MARB. An appeal to the Commission against a MARB order must be “filed within fifteen days” of it, with a further appeal to the Central Government within thirty days.
Correction (27 October 2026): This piece earlier gave the title of the 2023 MARB Regulations without the word “New”. The regulation’s title is the Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023.
What the Act says
Under the NMC Act, MARB’s functions include making “available on its website or in public domain the assessment and ratings of medical institutions at regular intervals” and “issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to the Commission for withdrawal of recognition” (Section 26). A person aggrieved by a board’s decision “may prefer an appeal to the Commission against such decision within sixty days of the communication of such decision” (Section 22(3)). Transparency has been contested before: in July 2024 the Central Information Commission “once again asked” the NMC to regularly upload the assessment reports of all medical colleges on its portal, within 30 days, Careers360 reported.
The Analysis
The editorial makes five points.
1. A weaker penalty frame. The withdrawal, it says, ends up “diminishing the framework of penalties vis-à-vis educational standards and infrastructure at medical colleges”, because the MSMER fined faculty members and administrators for false information. The regulation text bears this out (it names faculty, heads of department, deans, directors and doctors). The MSMER, the editorial adds, “was lauded for its intention to crack down on the deep-seated corruption and malpractice in medical colleges, particularly over ‘ghost faculty’ and ‘ghost patients’”.
2. A reason given, a scope unexplained. “The NMC’s justification”, in the editorial’s words, “is that MSMER also introduced a parallel mechanism allowing undergraduate and postgraduate boards to evaluate institutions, stepping on the MARB’s toes.” The only stated aim on record is the one Business Standard reported, to “eliminate overlapping regulatory procedures”. Even granting the overlap, the editorial says, “why the NMC scrapped MSMER wholesale is unclear”. It notes that the 2023 Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, by its account, “remain in force and include a provision to fine individual faculty members at postgraduate medical colleges”, so personal fines survive only at postgraduate centres.
3. Institutions only. Outside those centres, “the MARB and the NMC can only penalise institutions, which is harder and risks creating a perverse incentive to accommodate rather than punish”. A fine on a college, or a cut in its intake, falls on the institution and its students; the personal fine fell on the person who signed the false record. That, the editorial argues, was “the fear that keeps administrators honest”.
4. Two appeal clocks. The MARB Regulations keep an appeal process, but their fifteen-day deadline “could conflict with the 60-day period under the NMC Act, potentially creating legal disputes that delay penal action”. The difference in the two texts is real; whether it conflicts in law is the editorial’s reading.
5. Powers on paper, outcomes unseen. The editorial calls its last point “a telling incident”: in an RTI proceeding, it says, “the Central Information Commission revealed last year that the NMC had stated in 2024 that MARB had neither formally assessed nor rated medical colleges and that its standard forms need not be made public”, and a revised reply in October 2025 said the responding officer’s records held none of the corresponding reports. Yet the MARB Regulations require the Board to publish its latest annual assessment results. Hence its demand: “the public deserves to know whether the powers are also being exercised and whether the outcomes are as publicly accessible as intended.”
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
The withdrawal:
- MSMER 2023: notified 19 September 2023; gazetted 21 September 2023.
- De-notified by NMC notification dated 14 October 2026; published in the Gazette of India 16 October 2026; in force on publication.
- The Annual Disclosure Report continues under Sections 24(i) and 25(h) of the NMC Act.
Penalties and appeals:
- MSMER (withdrawn): up to ₹5 lakh on faculty, HoD, Dean, Director or doctor for false declarations or records.
- MARB Regulations, 2023 (gazetted 2 June 2023): up to ₹1 crore per non-compliance by an institution.
- Appeal against MARB to the Commission: within 15 days (MARB Regulations); against a board’s decision under the Act: 60 days (Section 22(3)).
- Second appeal: to the Central Government, within 30 days (MARB Regulations).
The Act:
- NMC Act, 2019: Act No. 30 of 2019; repealed the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; dissolved the MCI.
- Four boards (Section 16): UGMEB, PGMEB, MARB, EMRB.
- MARB (Section 26): publishes assessments and ratings; can warn, fine, reduce intake, stop admissions, recommend withdrawal of recognition.
- NEET under Section 14; NExT under Section 15.
⚠️ Watch the trap: the fine on institutions survives under the MARB Regulations; what went is the MSMER’s personal fine. Date the withdrawal by its gazette publication, the day it took effect, not by the date printed on the notification. MARB, not the education boards, assesses and rates colleges under the Act.
The Debate
The case for the editorial. A personal fine is the sharpest deterrent against a signed false record, and it reached the person who signed. Fining a college, cutting its seats or stopping admissions punishes students along with the management, which is why regulators may hesitate to use those tools. And a power that is not seen to be used deters no one: the MARB Regulations require published assessment results, and the CIC has more than once had to ask the NMC to upload assessment reports.
The other side. Overlap is a real cost. Under the MSMER, any of the NMC’s boards, individually or collectively, could have a disclosure report evaluated, while the Act makes MARB the body for assessment, rating and penalties; two tracks can mean duplicate scrutiny and conflicting findings. The withdrawal keeps what matters most: the disclosure duty survives in the Act, pending proceedings continue, the institutional fine remains, and the Act keeps doctors’ professional conduct with the Ethics and Medical Registration Board. Withdrawing a regulation does not repeal a statutory power.
The balanced verdict. The NMC may be right that one assessment track beats two. But a clean-up that removes the only general personal penalty should come with reasons and a replacement, and the test the editorial sets is fair: are MARB’s assessments done, published and enforced? That can be checked only if they are published.
How to Think About This
Use a “withdrawal test” whenever a regulator drops a rule:
- What exactly goes? Here: personal fines, evaluation by the other boards, the MSMER’s own appeal route.
- What survives, and at what level? Act or regulation? (Here: the disclosure duty in the Act; MARB’s statutory powers and its 2023 Regulations.)
- Is the surviving power used? Look for published assessments, ratings and penalty orders.
- Do the pieces fit? Compare deadlines and procedures across the regulations and the Act.
- Were reasons given? The notification gives none; a reported aim is not a recorded reason.
Then separate fact from argument: the dates, sections and penalty ceilings come from the gazette texts and the Act; “ghost faculty”, the “perverse incentive” and the RTI episode are the editorial’s account.
Diagram-in-Words
The MSMER withdrawal: what goes, what stays
The NMC de-notified its 2023 regulations; The Hindu’s editorial asks whether the powers left in place are used.
Read it from the top: in the second row, the left box is what the withdrawal removes and the right box what remains. The rows below give the editorial’s concerns and the test it sets for the NMC.
Effective regulation of medical education needs both deterrence and transparency. In the light of the withdrawal of the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023, examine the adequacy of the regulatory framework for medical colleges under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. (250 words)
The National Medical Commission Act, 2019 replaced the Medical Council of India with a Commission and four autonomous boards, including the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB). In October 2026 the Commission de-notified the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (MSMER), which had penalised institutions and individuals over false annual disclosures.
The change rationalises procedure but raises questions of deterrence and transparency.
What remains. The duty to file annual disclosure reports continues under Sections 24(i) and 25(h) of the Act.
Under Section 26, MARB can issue warnings, impose monetary penalties, reduce intake, stop admissions and recommend withdrawal of recognition, and its 2023 Regulations allow a penalty of up to ₹1 crore per non-compliance by an institution. Matters pending under the MSMER continue under it.
The case for withdrawal is coherence: one statutory board for assessment instead of evaluation of the same reports by other boards, the Commission’s stated aim being to eliminate overlapping regulatory procedures. What is lost.
The MSMER allowed fines of up to ₹5 lakh on faculty, heads of department, deans, directors or doctors who submitted false declarations or records, a direct deterrent to ‘ghost faculty’. Penalising only institutions is slower, and since it can hurt students through intake cuts it may encourage accommodation.
Appeals against MARB must now be filed within 15 days under its Regulations, against 60 days under Section 22(3) of the Act, a mismatch that may invite litigation. Transparency is uneven: MARB’s Regulations require it to publish annual assessment results and ratings, and the Central Information Commission has more than once directed the Commission to upload the assessment reports of medical colleges.
Removing overlap is sound only if the surviving powers are used and seen to be used. The Commission should publish MARB’s assessments and ratings, align appeal periods with the Act, provide a clear route to hold individuals to account for false records, and give reasons whenever it withdraws a regulation.
Interview Angle
"Medical colleges are accused of showing 'ghost faculty' to inspectors. As a regulator, would you fine the college, the person who signed the false record, or both? Why?"
Takeaway Box
- Lift line: “Unless the NMC has satisfactory answers for all these lacunae, the withdrawal will appear less like simplification and more like regulatory relaxation.”
- Core idea: withdrawing the MSMER removes personal fines for false records; the editorial asks whether MARB’s surviving powers are used and published.
- Prelims hooks: NMC Act 2019 (Act 30 of 2019), four boards (Section 16), MARB powers (Section 26), annual disclosure (Sections 24(i), 25(h)), appeal to the Commission (Section 22(3)); MARB Regulations 2023.
- Ethics and Interview angle: individual versus institutional accountability: who should pay for a false record, the signatory or the college and its students?
- Probable question: “Discuss the structure and functions of the National Medical Commission. How far has it improved accountability in medical education?” (GS2, 150 words)
Sources:
- “Dubious retreat: On the National Medical Commission and its MSMER”, editorial, The Hindu, 27 October 2026
- NMC notification F. No. Legal/NMC/Misc/2026/22, dated 14 October 2026, Gazette of India (Extraordinary), Part III, Section 4, 16 October 2026
- Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, Gazette of India (Extraordinary), 2 June 2023
- Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (regulation text)
- National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (PRS copy); PIB, 8 August 2019
- Business Standard, 23 October 2026
- Central Information Commission order on assessment reports, as reported by Careers360, 24 July 2024
Cite this page: NMC Withdraws MSMER 2023: A Dubious Retreat on Penalties — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
