“Both are doctors; the only thing is that he has studied abroad,” the Supreme Court observed, indicating it will pass comprehensive directions that all medical interns, whether Indian or foreign graduates, must be paid a stipend on parity, and warning States of contempt for non-payment.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has indicated that it will pass comprehensive directions requiring that all undergraduate medical interns across the country, whether Indian Medical Graduates (IMGs) or Foreign Medical Graduates (FMGs), be paid a stipend during their internship, and that too on parity between the two categories, while sharply questioning the National Medical Commission (NMC) and the States over the widespread failure of medical colleges to pay stipends [Abhishek Yadav and Others v. Army College of Medical Sciences].
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, hearing a pending batch of petitions on the non-payment of stipends, directed the NMC to ascertain and file a final affidavit on whether stipends had in fact been paid to foreign medical graduates in Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat and Jharkhand.
‘You utilise the services of the doctors and you don’t pay them?’
The Court reserved its sharpest words for the States that had failed to pay interns despite deploying their services. When counsel for Rajasthan submitted that budgetary sanction was yet to take place, Justice Kumar responded pointedly:
“You utilise the services of the doctors and you don’t pay them? If you don’t pay them within one week, your Secretary, Ministry of Health shall appear before the Court and we will frame charges against him for suo moto cognisance of contempt. Doctors, you make them work for 15-16 hours and they are so scared. The undergraduates, they will not open their mouths because they have to go for PG and they may come in the same college or meet the same professor and they are scared the HoD may question them.”
In its order, the Court recorded that while the NMC’s affidavit reflected that all interns had been paid, a chart placed on record by the petitioners showed the contrary, in 13 matters the petitioners had not been paid their stipends. It accordingly directed NMC’s counsel to ascertain the correct position and file a final affidavit, and made clear that its orders must be implemented “in letter and spirit.” Where amounts ordered to be paid were not paid, the Court held, the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, would have to appear in person and show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. It granted Rajasthan two weeks to release the sanctioned amounts.
The scale of the problem
The submissions before the Court laid bare the extent of non-payment. The NMC’s counsel maintained that stipends were paid to all students in colleges recognised by it, and that only seven colleges had not been paying, all of which had begun to do so once the NMC imposed costs. That account was contested. Nodal counsel Advocate Charu Mathur reminded the Court of its 2023 order, which had asked the NMC to file a tabulated chart on whether stipends were unpaid in a large proportion of colleges, and submitted that on an analysis of the NMC’s own data, out of 443 colleges only about 50% were found to be paying stipends to interns, while the rest were not.
Confronted with this discrepancy, Justice Kumar warned the NMC’s counsel that if its affidavit was contrary to what had been placed on record, the Court would summon its Director. It was further submitted that Rajasthan had been obtaining affidavits from interns seeking to create an estoppel against them from claiming stipend or approaching the Court in future, and that although budgetary funds had been sanctioned, the State had not released them, citing budgetary constraints.
‘There can’t be disparity between Indian and foreign graduates’
Beyond non-payment, the petitioners raised the distinct issue of disparity in stipend between Indian and foreign medical graduates. It was pointed out that in Jharkhand, where Indian medical graduates received Rs 30,000, their foreign counterparts were paid only Rs 17,500. Indicating that it would step in to protect the interests of all undergraduate interns nationally, the Court observed:
“We will protect the interests of the entire undergraduates of this country. We will pass final orders. We are going to comprehensively pass an order. First, all undergraduates will get it. There can’t be disparity between Indian medical graduates and foreign. Both are doctors; the only thing is that he has studied abroad.”
To address the recurring problem of non-implementation, the Court indicated that it would consider entrusting the oversight of stipend payments to an authority, such as a fee-regulation commission, and would examine whether retired judges should be appointed by the State governments exclusively to deal with the non-payment of stipends. Counsel for Rajasthan and Gujarat submitted, on record, that they would release funds to all interns.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Steps In As FMGs Fight For Rightful Stipend In Gujarat Internship Row
Why it matters
The proceedings address a long-standing grievance of medical interns, whose year of compulsory rotating internship involves long hours of clinical work in hospitals, often, as the Court noted, 15 to 16 hours a day, yet who are frequently paid little or nothing. The Court’s framing squarely engages the “equal pay for equal work” and Article 14 principles: interns discharging the same duties in the same hospitals cannot be denied a stipend, and, crucially, foreign medical graduates cannot be paid less than their Indian counterparts merely because they studied abroad, once both have qualified to serve as interns in India. The observation that “both are doctors” captures the anti-discrimination core of the direction the Court proposes to pass.
Equally significant is the Court’s evident impatience with non-compliance. By threatening contempt against a State Health Secretary, warning that the NMC’s Director could be summoned over an allegedly inaccurate affidavit, and flagging the practice of extracting estoppel affidavits from vulnerable interns, the Court signalled that it views the non-payment not as a mere administrative lapse but as an exploitation of young doctors who, as it noted, are often too dependent on their institutions to protest. The proposal to appoint a dedicated authority or retired judges to enforce stipend payments reflects a recognition that repeated judicial orders have not, by themselves, secured compliance. The matter is at the stage of oral observations and interim directions; the Court has indicated that comprehensive final orders on universal, parity-based stipends will follow.
Case Title: Abhishek Yadav and Others v. Army College of Medical Sciences [W.P.(C) No. 730 of 2022]
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date of Hearing: September 17, 2026