Disposed¶19

Anuradha Biswakarma v. National Medical Commission & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/1946/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 1946/2025; Jasmeet Singh J.; order 15.01.2026; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of certiorari and mandamus; FMGE eligibility certificate; NMC (Respondent No.1) and EMRB (Respondent No.2) email dated 14.06.2024 Annexure P-1; Respondent No.3 FMGE June-July 2025; Physics not studied in Class-XI and XII at Singapore; Association of India University certificate; petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty; fresh cause of action; merits and eligibility not examined.

What did the court decide?

None of the sought reliefs granted; petition withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue Class-XI and XII Physics as an additional subject and thereafter apply for FMGE, which would constitute a fresh cause of action. ¶19

Anuradha Biswakarma Vs National Medical Commission… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who admittedly has not studied Physics in her Class-XI and XII at Singapore, is eligible to receive the eligibility certificate from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and to appear for the FMGE. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting on the merits of the present petition, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner (to pursue Class-XI and XII Physics as an additional subject and thereafter apply for FMGE).

¶17

Key takeaways

The pursuit of Class-XI and XII Physics as an additional subject and a subsequent application for FMGE would constitute a fresh cause of action as and when it arises.ratio¶16
The Court expressly clarifies that it has not examined the merits of the petition or the issue of eligibility of the petitioner.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J.), W.P.(C) 1946/2025, order dated 15.01.2026 — Article 226 writ by a petitioner who admittedly had not studied Physics in her Class-XI and XII at Singapore, seeking (i) certiorari quashing the decision of Respondent No.1 (NMC) and Respondent No.2 (EMRB) contained in an email dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-1), (ii) mandamus to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue the eligibility certificate, and (iii) mandamus to Respondent No.3 to allow her to appear in the FMGE to be conducted in June-July, 2025. Counsel asserted that her certificate from the Association of India University should be a sufficient enough requirement for the FMGE. Without prejudice to her rights, the petitioner instead elected to pursue Class-XI and XII Physics as an additional subject and thereafter apply for FMGE. The Court, expressly declining to examine the merits or the question of eligibility, disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty, observing that such pursuit would constitute a fresh cause of action as and when it arises.

¶1

$~84

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1946/2025 & CM APPL. 9082/2025, CM APPL. 72490/2025 ANURADHA BISWAKARMA .....Petitioner Through: Adv. Yoothica Pallavi, Adv. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Anuradha Biswakarma versus

¶4

NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. T. Singhdev (Adv), Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty (Adv), Mr. Bhanu Gulati (Adv), Mr. Tanishq Srivastava (Adv), Mr. Vedant Sood (Adv), Ms. Yamini Singh (Adv), Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur (Adv) for R1 Mr Siddharth Garg (Adv), Mr. Himanshu Chaubey (Adv), Mr. Siddharth Garg (Adv), Miss Lihzu Shiney Konyak (Adv), Mr Srajan Yadav (Adv), Miss Trisha Garimala (Adv) for R3

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 15.01.2026

¶6

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶7

“A. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 contained in an email dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) sent by Respondent No.1; and

¶8

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1- NMC and Respondent No.2 (EMRB) to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner; and

¶9

C. Issue a writ of mandamus or any writ, order or

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/01/2026 at 13:36:40

¶12

direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to allow the petitioner to appear in FMGE to be conducted in June-July, 2025;”

¶13

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has not studied Physics in her Class-XI and XII at Singapore.

¶14

Ms. Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner possesses the certificate from the Association of India University which should be sufficient enough requirement to appear for the FMGE.

¶15

However, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, the petitioner seeks to pursue Class-XI and XII Physics as an additional subject and thereafter apply for FMGE.

¶16

The same would constitute a fresh cause of action as and when it arises.

¶17

Without commenting on the merits of the present petition, the same is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as above.

¶18

It is further clarified that the Court has not examined the merits of the petition as well as the issue of eligibility of the petitioner.

¶19

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶20

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶21

JANUARY 15, 2026 / (MS)

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/01/2026 at 13:36:40

Anuradha Biswakarma v. National Medical Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Biswakarma v. National Medical Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Kajal and Anrs. Vs the Controller (Cd) DM S/W District and Anr.

M/S Amazon Distributors (P) Ltd. Vs Ajay Tiwari

M/S Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. Vs Ram Phool

Goldtex Furnishing Indutries Vs UOI & Ors.

Sohan Lal Hans Vs Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors.

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs Commissioner of Customs

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Vasu Agarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Bahl Vs Delhi Development Authority

Ajay Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Ministry of Urban Development & Anr.

Lokesh Sharma Vs University of Delhi & Anr.