The National Medical Commission (NMC) has officially denotified the 2023 Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations (MSMER). This move removes a set of rules that allowed fines of up to ₹5 lakh on individual faculty and administrators for providing false information. While the MARB can still fine institutions up to ₹1 crore under the 2023 Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, the withdrawal of MSMER raises questions about regulatory effectiveness.
Key Developments
- MSMER, which targeted ‘ghost faculty’ and ‘ghost patients’, is fully withdrawn.
- Individual‑level fines of up to ₹5 lakh are no longer enforceable.
- 2023 Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations remain in force, retaining faculty‑level penalties for PG colleges.
- MARB retains the power to fine institutions up to ₹1 crore, but only at the institutional level.
- Potential legal clash between MARB’s 15‑day appeal deadline and the 60‑day period under the NMC Act.
- RTI‑based inquiries revealed inconsistencies in MARB’s assessment reports and their public availability.
Important Facts
Penalty Structure
Under MSMER, faculty could be penalised up to ₹5 lakh. MARB’s authority under the 2023 regulations allows a maximum fine of ₹1 crore on institutions, creating a higher threshold but a broader target.
Appeal Mechanism
MARB’s regulations prescribe a 15‑day window to appeal a penalty, which may conflict with the 60‑day period stipulated in the NMC Act. This overlap could delay enforcement.
Transparency Issues
In 2024, the CIC noted that MARB had not formally assessed or published its rating reports. A revised reply in October 2025 still lacked the required documents, despite the 2023 MARB regulations mandating public disclosure of assessment results.
Exam Relevance
Understanding the NMC‑MARB dynamics is crucial for GS2 (Polity) as it illustrates how regulatory bodies interact, overlap, and sometimes conflict. The shift from individual to institutional penalties touches on GS3 (Economy) because it affects financial deterrents against malpractice. Moreover, the transparency lapses highlighted by the RTI Act and CIC decisions are directly linked to governance and accountability, core themes in GS4 (Ethics).
Way Forward
- Clarify whether MARB is exercising its institutional‑penalty powers and ensure timely public disclosure of assessment reports.
- Harmonise the appeal timelines to avoid legal bottlenecks between MARB regulations and the NMC Act.
- Consider re‑introducing targeted individual penalties to maintain a strong deterrent against faculty‑level corruption.
- Strengthen oversight mechanisms, possibly through a joint committee of NMC, MARB, and the Ministry of Health, to monitor compliance and transparency.