Supreme Court orders stipend parity for foreign medical graduates at AMU, shields colleges from UGC action

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale heard the plea on February 4.

“As such, they cannot be discriminated against and paid less stipend,” said the bench.

Doctors trained abroad denied equal stipend

• The petitioners were Indian citizens who pursued their medical education abroad, in countries including Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Russia and China.
• After clearing mandatory screening requirements, they completed their compulsory internship in India in JN Medical College of AMU during the period June 2023 to June 2024.
• The petitioners, in the plea, said they are not receiving any stipend in their institution while Indian Medical Graduates (IMGs) are being paid a stipend of Rs 26,300 per month.
• Advocate Charu Mathur, appearing for the petitioners, said that a batch junior to them has received a stipend through a July 15, 2025, order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition number 232/2025.
• Aggrieved by this, the FMGs approached the apex court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authorities to pay stipend for the entire internship period at par with Indian medical graduates.

UGC approval issue

• The Supreme Court insulated medical colleges from any adverse action by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for disbursing stipends without prior approval, removing what it described as the primary stumbling block cited by the authorities.
• During the hearing, counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submitted that while they were not disputing the entitlement of FMGs, they were apprehensive that disbursing stipends without explicit UGC approval could invite objections or adverse action.
• The bench rejected this concern, noting that an identical plea had already been raised and answered in the earlier case.
• To put the issue beyond doubt, the court reiterated its earlier protection in unequivocal terms, stating that stipend payment made pursuant to judicial directions would not expose colleges to regulatory consequences.
• The bench said this clarification was necessary to allay the apprehension of respondent colleges and to fully insulate them from any adverse orders, remarks or penalties.

No serious dispute on right to stipend

• The Supreme Court recorded that the respondent authorities were not seriously disputing the right of the petitioners to receive stipend, nor were they denying the legitimacy of their claim.
• This, the bench said, left little scope for prolonged adjudication.
• “The respondent Nos. 1 (AMU) and 2 (JN Medical College) are not seriously disputing the entitlement of the petitioners receiving the stipend or denying their claim,” the court noted.

Previous Supreme Court order

• While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court referred extensively to its earlier judgment in another petition where the court had unequivocally recognised that FMGs are entitled to receive stipend during internship.
• In that case, the court had recorded a categorical statement by the medical institution concerned that it was willing to release the entire stipend amount within two weeks.
• The top court had expressly directed that no adverse action shall be taken by the UGC on the ground that stipend has been paid without prior permission.
• The court had also clarified that payment of stipend is a matter of right for students, and procedural objections cannot be used to deny that entitlement.

Seniors can’t be treated worse than juniors

• Applying the same reasoning to the present case, the bench noted that the petitioners in this case completed their internship before the petitioner-beneficiaries of the July 15, 2025, order.
• “The petitioners having completed their internship prior to the petitioners in WP No.232/2025, would stand on the same footing as that of writ petitioners in WP No.232/2025,” the court said.
• The bench held that once stipend parity has been granted to junior interns, there is no legal justification to deny or reduce stipend for seniors, describing such differential treatment as impermissible.

Final direction, timeline

• The Supreme Court disposed of the petition with a time-bound direction to ensure compliance.
• The court ordered, “The respondent shall pay the difference of stipend expeditiously, at any rate within three weeks from today.”
• The ruling effectively settles the issue of stipend parity for FMGs who completed their internship before the July 2025 judgment, and is expected to benefit hundreds of foreign-trained Indian doctors who have long raised concerns over unequal treatment during mandatory medical training.

Equal work must be met with equal dignity

Speaking on the development, advocate Charu Mathur, who represented the petitioners, told The Indian Express, “This judgment reinforces a fundamental constitutional principle — equal work must be met with equal dignity. Foreign Medical Graduates, who are Indian citizens and who undergo the same Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship as Indian Medical Graduates, cannot be denied a stipend when they perform identical clinical duties and shoulder the same responsibilities. Once the entitlement to stipend is acknowledged, it cannot be withheld on the basis of administrative hesitation or regulatory apprehensions.”

Mathur added, “The Supreme Court has further clarified that regulatory bodies such as the UGC cannot raise audit objections when payment is made pursuant to a judicial direction. This order not only remedies a discriminatory practice but also protects young doctors from being compelled to serve without financial support while working in public healthcare institutions. It marks an important step toward ensuring uniformity, fairness, and regulatory clarity in the implementation of internship policies across institutions.”