Discuss the merits of individual versus institutional liability in enforcing standards in medical education in India.

In October 2026, the National Medical Commission (NMC) withdrew its Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations (MSMER), 2023. It said they overlapped with the role of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) [1]. The withdrawal ends fines of up to ₹5 lakh on faculty and administrators who give false information. Institutions can still be fined up to ₹1 crore [2]. Good enforcement needs both kinds of liability.

Merits of individual liability

• Reaches the person responsible: "ghost faculty" and "ghost patients" are false records that a dean or doctor signs. A personal fine hits that person directly [2].
• Stronger deterrent: a fine on a college is spread across the organisation and often recovered through fees. A personal fine is felt as one's own loss.
• Early action: the wrongdoing can be checked before a whole batch of students gets poor clinical training.
• Professional ethics: it reinforces honesty in a self-regulating profession. This fits the 2016 Parliamentary Standing Committee's call for accountability in medical regulation [4].

Merits of institutional liability

• Systemic responsibility: infrastructure, hospital beds and hiring are decisions taken by management. MARB can impose monetary penalties on colleges that fall short of minimum standards [3].
• Graded tools under the law: under the NMC Act, 2019, MARB can warn a college, fine it, cut its admissions or recommend withdrawal of recognition. It can also use independent rating agencies [3].
• One clear inspector: a single assessing body avoids the MCI-era conflict of interest. For this reason the Standing Committee wanted an independent accreditation body [4].
• Avoids scapegoating: management may pressure junior faculty. Institutional liability puts the burden on those who hold the resources.

Limits of relying on only one

• Fines on colleges alone let the person who signed go free. Blunt tools such as cutting admissions also hurt students.
• Fines on individuals alone miss underinvestment by management and can be used to harass staff.
• Uneven coverage: personal fines still apply at PG colleges under the PG Medical Education Regulations, 2023, but not at UG-only colleges [2].

Way forward

• Amend, don't scrap: move the personal-penalty clause into MARB's own regulations. This keeps one inspector and still keeps individuals accountable [1][2].
• Apply the same rule at UG and PG colleges, and widen the use of independent rating agencies [3].
• Publish reasons whenever a regulation is withdrawn.

Individual and institutional liability work best together. Institutions answer for the system and individuals answer for what they sign. A layered model would protect training quality as seats expand. It would also serve Article 47's duty to improve public health and SDG 3 (good health and well-being).