Disposed

Nuclear Medicine Physicists Association of India Nmpai and Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2398/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Association of nuclear medicine professionals challenged draft curriculum and registration regulations under the NCAHP Act, fearing disqualification of qualified personnel and lack of council representation. The Court directed the respondents to consider representations and decide on statutory representation within eight weeks, without finalising the framework, and disposed of the petition without

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to consider petitioner's consolidated representation and decide the Section 10/Schedule representation issue within eight weeks; framework not to be finalised without due con

Nuclear Medicine Physicists Association of India… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~87

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2398/2026 & CM APPL. 11727/2026

¶4

NUCLEAR MEDICINE PHYSICISTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

¶5

NMPAI AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Sharang Dhulia, CGSC with Mr. Chetan Jadon, Advocate and Ms. Rupali Sinha, GP for R-1 and R-2.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 19.02.2026

¶14

The Petitioner is an association representing Nuclear Medicine professionals who are formally educated and clinically trained in Nuclear Medicine practice. This petition is representative in character and seeks to protect the professional interests of such personnel presently working in Nuclear Medicine Departments, handling, inter alia , unsealed radioactive sources, internal dosimetry, radiation protection and quality assurance specific to Nuclear Medicine.

¶15

Their principal grievance emanated from the draft documents circulated by Respondent No. 2, the National Commission for Allied and

¶16

W.P.(C) 2398/2026 Page 1 of 5

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 23/02/2026 at 12:03:41

¶19

Healthcare Professions¹ including the draft curriculum in the domain of Medical Physics and the draft “Registration of Allied and Healthcare Professionals Regulations, 2025”. The Petitioner apprehends that, if finalised in the present form, the draft curriculum and the linked eligibility/cadre structure would have the effect of disqualifying professionals with specialised nuclear medicine qualifications, even where they have long been discharging functions associated with Medical Physicists (Nuclear Medicine) in established hospital settings.

¶20

The Petitioner’s submission, however, is not limited to disagreement with the content of the draft. It also raises a statutory concern under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021.² The Petitioner relies on Section 10, which mandates the constitution of a Professional Council for every “recognised category”. The expression “recognised category” is defined under Section 2(q) to mean a category of allied and healthcare professionals specified in the Schedule to the Act. Under Serial No. 8 of the Schedule, the recognised category “Medical Radiology, Imaging and Therapeutic Technology Professional” enumerates, inter alia , “Nuclear Medicine Technologist” as one of the allied and healthcare professions, alongside “Medical Physicist” and other specified professions. To avoid ambiguity, the relevant extract from the Schedule is reproduced below:

¶21

“Serial Recognised Category Allied and Healthcare Professional ISCO Number Code

¶22

1“NCAHP”

¶23

2 “NCAHP Act”

¶24

W.P.(C) 2398/2026 Page 2 of 5

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 23/02/2026 at 12:03:41

¶27

8. Medical Radiology, (i) Medical Physicist 2111 Imaging and Therapeutic Technology Professional (ii) Nuclear Medicine Technologist 3211 (iii) Radiology and Imaging 3211 Technologist [Diagnostic Medical Radiographer, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), Mammographer, Diagnostic Medical Sonographers] (iv) Radiotherapy Technologist 3211 (v) Dosimetrist 3211”

¶28

The Petitioner’s grievance, therefore, has two distinct strands: first, that its objections to the draft curriculum and cadre/eligibility framework must be meaningfully considered before the draft is finalised; and second, that the statutory scheme contemplates representation of the identified professions within the relevant Professional Council and the absence of an effective representation affects their rights and is causing them prejudice.

¶29

It is important to emphasize that judicial review at the draft stage is ordinarily confined to ensuring that the statutory process is followed, that stakeholders likely to be affected are given a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and that the decision-making does not proceed on an evident misreading of the parent statute.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the draft was placed in the public domain and that the Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 6^th July, 2025

¶31

W.P.(C) 2398/2026 Page 3 of 5

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 23/02/2026 at 12:03:41

¶34

pointing out the absence of adequate representation.

¶35

Since the matter remains at a draft stage, the appropriate course is to ensure that the consultative and statutory requirements are complied with and that Petitioner’s concerns be taken into consideration before the draft is taken to finality. 8. Mr. Mayank Sharma, counsel for the Petitioner, states that, in addition to the representation already filed, a further consolidated representation, with supporting material, will be filed within two weeks from today. On filing of the same, the Respondents may be directed to consider the same.

¶36

As regards the representation and the statutory issue flagged under Section 10 read with the Schedule of the NCAHP Act, the Court is satisfied that the grievance is not frivolous. Where a parent statute identifies a profession within a recognised category and mandates a Professional Council for that category, the composition and representational balance cannot be treated as an internal administrative matter divorced from statutory purpose. Participation of affected professions is integral to credible standard-setting, particularly in specialised fields where patient safety, radiation protection and professional competence are closely intertwined.

¶37

Accordingly, the following directions are issued: (i) The Petitioner shall file its additional consolidated representation within two weeks from today.

¶38

(ii) Respondent No. 2 shall consider the Petitioner’s submissions on the draft curriculum and the draft regulatory/cadre framework and take a decision thereon, in accordance with law.

¶39

(iii) Respondent No. 2 shall also take a decision on the Petitioner’s representation dated 6^th July, 2025 concerning representation of nuclear

¶40

W.P.(C) 2398/2026 Page 4 of 5

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

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 23/02/2026 at 12:03:41

¶43

medicine technologists within the relevant Professional Council, keeping in view Section 10 read with the Schedule of the NCAHP Act, and communicate the outcome to the Petitioner, within eight weeks from today. (iv) The Respondents shall not finalise the impugned curriculum/cadre framework without due consideration of the Petitioner’s submissions and the decision contemplated above.

¶44

It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the substantive merits of the draft curriculum or the final content of the regulatory framework. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. If the Petitioner remains aggrieved after the decisions are communicated, it will be open to take recourse to remedies available in law. 12. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of along with pending application.

¶45

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶46

FEBRUARY 19, 2026/ hc

¶47

W.P.(C) 2398/2026 Page 5 of 5

¶48

This is a digitally signed order.

¶49

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 23/02/2026 at 12:03:41

Nuclear Medicine Physicists Association of India Nmpai and Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nuclear Medicine Physicists Association of India Nmpai and Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.R. Aravindakshan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Master Hemaang Goel Vs Union of India & Ors.

M S Itd Cementation India Limited Vs Rupal Murmu and 22 Ors. & Anr.

Mrs Madhu Chopra Vs Unique Identification Authority of India - Uidai

Vijai Prakash Shukla Vs UOI & Anr.

Sahil David Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Hav. Jawan Singh (Retd.) (No. 01586159L)

Yash Jain Vs the Principal Maxfort Public School & Anr.

Mr Ram Kumar Goel Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Heigrujam Manglem Singh Vs Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Anr.

Gurbachan Singh Chhatwal Vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Bipin Kumar Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.

Virender Singh Shah Vs Delhi and District Cricket Association

Dr Manu Banga Vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women & Anr.