Introduction:
In an ongoing matter concerning alleged large-scale irregularities in the recognition of paramedical institutes in Madhya Pradesh, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla, on August 8, 2025, permitted the Madhya Pradesh Paramedical Council to submit all documents relating to recognition granted to various paramedical colleges in the state in a sealed cover before the court. The decision came in light of the pending determination by the Supreme Court of India on the locus standi of the petitioner, the Law Students’ Association, which had approached the court alleging serious violations and illegalities in the recognition process. Notably, the Supreme Court had, just a week earlier, stayed the High Court’s July 16 interim order restraining paramedical institutes granted recognition in 2025 from conducting academic sessions for 2023–2024 and 2024–2025. The High Court had previously taken note of prima facie material suggesting that the same physical premises were being used to operate both nursing and paramedical colleges, a practice that raised grave concerns about educational standards and public safety.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The Law Students’ Association approached the court highlighting what they described as systemic corruption and procedural violations in the recognition of paramedical colleges in Madhya Pradesh. They submitted photographs and other evidence indicating that the same buildings and facilities were being shown as two separate institutions — one a nursing college and the other a paramedical college — often with only cosmetic changes such as replacing the signage or flex boards during inspections. This, they argued, amounted to a deliberate attempt to deceive inspection authorities and circumvent the minimum infrastructure and faculty requirements prescribed under the law.
The petitioner stressed that the issue was not merely one of administrative irregularity but directly impacted public health and safety, since graduates of these institutions would enter the healthcare sector without having undergone proper training. They emphasised that the state’s future healthcare workforce could be compromised if such “fly-by-night” institutions were allowed to function unchecked.
They further referred to the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of MP Medical Science University (MPMSU) dated August 4, 2025, which recorded a decision to engage the Quality Council of India (QCI) to conduct inspections of paramedical institutes. The petitioner urged the court to direct the QCI to specifically verify and certify in its inspection reports whether the inspected premises were exclusively used for paramedical education, without being shared with other institutions such as nursing colleges.
The petitioner also argued that there existed a trust deficit in the functioning of regulatory and investigative bodies, citing the earlier case concerning nursing college affiliations where the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was tasked with verifying institutions, but some of its own officers were allegedly compromised by corrupt practices. This, they argued, necessitated extra vigilance and court-monitored transparency to ensure credibility in the inspection process.
Arguments of the Respondent – Madhya Pradesh Paramedical Council:
The Paramedical Council, represented by senior counsel, took strong objection to the petitioner’s request for access to official recognition documents at this stage. They pointed out that the Supreme Court had questioned the very locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the council’s actions, and the issue was presently sub judice before the apex court.
The respondents argued that if the High Court were to hand over the recognition documents to the petitioner before the Supreme Court’s decision on locus standi, it could lead to misuse of sensitive information and have “undesirable effects” in the event the petitioner was ultimately found to lack the legal standing to maintain the case.
They emphasised that multiple statutory authorities were already examining the legality of the recognitions granted to these colleges, and there was no need for additional directions such as those sought by the petitioner regarding QCI’s inspection scope. According to the council, the matter was being investigated at various levels, and the council had nothing to hide; however, procedural propriety required that sensitive data be handled cautiously and only by authorised bodies until the Supreme Court’s ruling clarified the petitioner’s standing.
The respondent thus requested that all relevant documents be submitted directly to the High Court in a sealed cover in soft copy form, to be reviewed by the court without disclosure to the petitioner at this stage.
Court’s Judgment:
After hearing both sides, the bench recorded that its July 16, 2025 interim order had been based on prima facie concerns arising from photographic evidence indicating that the same physical establishment was being used to operate both nursing and paramedical colleges. The court noted that such practices, if true, could seriously undermine the quality of healthcare education in the state, posing a direct threat to public health by producing under-trained or unqualified healthcare workers.
The judges also acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s stay order on July 16 and its ongoing scrutiny of the petitioner’s locus standi meant that any premature disclosure of official records to the petitioner might be inappropriate. The court agreed with the Paramedical Council’s position that, until the apex court reached a determination, the records should remain confidential.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Paramedical Council to submit the recognition-related documents in a sealed cover in soft copy for the court’s review. This, the bench reasoned, would allow judicial scrutiny to continue without risking the potential misuse of information.
Importantly, the court also addressed the petitioner’s request regarding QCI inspections. The bench observed that the case highlighted an “environment where money speaks and integrity has no value,” referring to the nursing college case where even CBI officers were accused of corruption. It remarked, “It is not a crime to be dishonest; it is a crime to get caught,” underscoring the difficulty in trusting official reports in the face of systemic corruption.
Given this background, the court found no harm in directing QCI to specifically note in its inspection reports whether the premises inspected are being used exclusively for paramedical education and not shared with other institutions. This measure, the court held, would help ensure greater transparency and make it harder for institutions to pass inspections through cosmetic alterations.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 12, 2025.