Widespread concern is erupting in India’s medical education space, as demands for NMC transparency intensify. The National Medical Commission, established in 2020 to replace the Medical Council of India, was heralded for promoting openness and accountability. But persistent withholding of medical college Self‑Assessment Forms (SAFs) has pushed aspirants, educators, and RTI activists to spotlight the NMC’s failure to live up to its mandate. At the heart of this resistance lies a collective call for clarity—students are asking: How are colleges truly evaluated? Why keep this data private?
This debate comes on the back of mounting revelations: a recent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe uncovered an attempted bribe of ₹10 lakh paid to an NMC assessor in exchange for a favorable rating. This scandal underscores just how critical NMC transparency can be—not only in principle, but to deter corruption.
Background: NMC Replaces MCI with Promise of Openness
The National Medical Commission (NMC) was constituted under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, replacing the Medical Council of India (MCI). Among its stated goals: enforcing transparency. In July 2023, the Central Information Commission (CIC) affirmed this by ordering NMC to proactively disclose annual assessment reports of all medical colleges—citing the RTI Act’s Section 4 requirement . However, in May 2024, during its internal review, NMC resolved that SAF documents weren’t necessary for public release—claiming legal ambiguity . Thus began a tug of war: government bodies urging more openness, NMC retreating behind legal opacity.
What are Self‑Assessment Forms (SAFs)?
SAFs include detailed annual self-declarations from medical colleges, covering:
- Infrastructure (classrooms, labs, wards)
- Faculty strength and qualifications
- Bed and patient load
- Academic and research facilities
This data is vital: aspirants decide where to apply based on infrastructure quality, faculty competence, and clinical exposure. Withholding SAFs extinguishes informed choice. Patients and families, too, lose visibility into the quality of local medical education services.
Who’s Pushing for NMC Transparency—and Why
- Medical aspirants and parents argue that lack of SAF access leaves them guessing about college capabilities. They believe decisions hinge on data now hidden behind legal red tape.
- RTI activists like Dr. K.V. Babu have persistently filed petitions, prompting CIC notices and renewed demands for data release.
- Education experts and transparency advocates cite comparisons to the former MCI, whose public posting of assessment reports enforced accountability.
- Journalists and watchdogs highlight how suppressed data fosters a breeding ground for underqualification, inflated infrastructure claims, and corruption.
Corruption Scandal Highlights Cost of Silence
The NMC’s January press release confirmed a CBI arrest of a senior assessor caught accepting a ₹10 lakh bribe in Karnataka to rate a private medical college positively . With such blatant wrongdoing, NMC transparency activists argue that mandatory public disclosure would deter such corrupt practices. If faculty numbers, facilities, and performance data are public, outliers—like colleges with suspicious ratings—could be quickly flagged by experts, prompting further checks.
Legal & Regulatory Tussle
NMC claims it requested legal advice on whether SAFs constitute “voluminous and scattered” documents, making public release difficult. Their stance: privacy exemptions apply. But CIC rejects this, stating proactive disclosure is essential under the RTI Act, only excluding personal data. The Commission reaffirmed in July 2024 that SAFs must appear online, and NMC lacks discretion to withhold them.
Legal observers note NMC can comply by redacting limited personal info while releasing critical infrastructure data. NMC’s continued delay raises questions about institutional accountability—especially after the bribe scandal.
Voices from the Ground
- NEET UG 2025 aspirants on EduFever lament opaque assessments: “Lakhs of NEET-UG 2025 students are facing uncertainty”.
- RTI petitioners assert SAFs belong in public domain—fundamental to student choice and public interest.
- Educational watchdogs warn that secrecy cedes power to corrupt evaluators and allows colleges to exaggerate capabilities arbitrarily.
Why it Matters
The implications of suppressed SAF data are deep:
- Student disadvantage: No way to compare labs, faculty ratios, and patient load. Decisions become based on hearsay or marketing.
- Healthcare quality: Colleges with substandard facilities slip through accreditation, leading to underprepared doctors entering the system.
- Trust deficit: Continued opacity undermines NMC’s reputation and public confidence in medical governance.
International Comparisons
Globally, medical accreditation bodies (e.g., USLCME in the U.S., GMC in the U.K.) publish college reports online. Transparency boosts accountability—NMC’s deviation invites scrutiny. As India claims world-class medical education, secrecy undercuts credibility.
What Happens Next?
- RTI and legal escalation: Petitioners may return to CIC or file in High Courts if NMC fails to act.
- Public pressure: Aspirant groups, parents, and student bodies may escalate via media campaigns.
- Potential reform: In the worst-case scenario, Parliament or Ministry of Health could mandate transparency through statute or legal amendment.
“Read the latest breaking and trending news on RealtimeVoice — your trusted source for real-time updates, insights, and analysis”.
Conclusion
The push for NMC transparency isn’t a bureaucratic tug; it is a fundamental issue touching access, equity, and ethical education. With the recent bribe scandal bubbling and thousands of students impacted, NMC’s current stance of hesitation no longer suffices. The Commission must recognize that public trust and integrity hinge on openness. Publishing SAFs—redacted judiciously—is not just a legal requirement; it is an ethical imperative. Failure to act could erode years of work to reform India’s medical education.
