How NMC Has Failed to Reform Medical Education

Hyderabad: The National Medical Commission (NMC) is facing strong criticism over its Teacher Eligibility Qualifications (TEQ) 2025 Gazette, which allows non-MBBS graduates to teach foundational subjects in medical colleges.

Dr Anoop Singh Gurjar, professor and head of anatomy and general secretary of the All India Pre and Para Clinical Medical Association (AIPCMA), strongly criticised the gazette saying that it erected a bifurcated system in which one cohort of instructors — MBBS graduates — has been subjected to a unified WFME (World Federation for Medical Education) aligned-CBME (Competency-Based Medical Education) approach, while the other cohort remains untested, unregulated and unaccountable.

Dr Gurjar emphasised that MBBS graduates undergo rigorous, standardised training, including clinical internships, ethical instruction and hands-on exposure across 19 disciplines. In contrast, non-MBBS faculty possess no internship or clinical training, no registration with NMC and no accountability under professional conduct regulations, which Dr Gurjar deemed unacceptable for educators in a clinical context.

Dr Gurjar contended this move would result in "substandard training" in underserved regions, further widening healthcare inequities.

In an RTI filed by Dr Gurjar in 2017, asking details of notifications where the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) had mentioned that MSc and PhD candidates could be appointed as faculty in medical colleges, the council had responded by saying that these courses "did not come under its purview" and hence it could not comment. Dr Gurjar argued that even the NMC website showed that these courses were not under its purview and need not be taken under consideration for recruitment of faculty.

"The big question is how did courses that did not come under the commission's purview until last year, all of a sudden, were considerable," he asked.

Echoing the concerns, Dr Vikash R. Keshri, a public health and health policy researcher, highlighted the long-standing challenges in India’s medical education landscape. “The problem is not with the NMC alone, but with the unplanned expansion of UG and PG seats that has diluted educational quality,” he said.

Dr Keshri noted that the NMC was introduced to reform and regulate medical education, where the MCI had failed. Beyond education, it was also tasked with broader reforms, such as improving the standards of practice, assessing human resource needs and introducing mid-level health providers.

“However, since becoming functional in 2020, the focus on expanding seats has overshadowed these agendas. This has led to relaxed norms for opening new colleges, dilution of faculty-student ratios and other compromises,” Dr Keshri said.

“That said, NMC has also taken positive steps, such as implementing biometric and facial recognition systems to track faculty attendance. These are welcome measures, though their long-term impact remains to be seen."

Dr Keshri also pointed out that the revision of faculty eligibility rules fees rushed. "This has resulted in the entry of individuals who may not be serious about teaching — joining simply to fill vacant positions — while more qualified researchers, clinicians, and professionals are left out. The reforms could have been more effective had they focused on attracting experienced medical teachers with proven academic and clinical track records,” he said.

He gave the example of doctors trained in India who have worked abroad or in reputed private institutions within India and who have strong research credentials, are often disqualified under current norms.