The National Medical Commission was meant to correct the regulatory failures of the Medical Council of India. Critically examine whether its regulatory approach has delivered on that promise.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee's 92nd Report (2016) said the MCI suffered from conflict of interest, corruption and weak standards. It asked that autonomy be "balanced with accountability" [1]. The NMC was constituted in September 2020 under the NMC Act, 2019 [2]. It has fixed the MCI's design flaws, but its enforcement record is mixed.

Where the NMC has delivered

• Functions are now separate: four Autonomous Boards (UGMEB, PGMEB, MARB, EMRB) handle standard-setting, assessment and ethics separately. This removes the MCI's clash between licensing colleges and checking their quality [4].
• Assessment is more independent: the MARB permits new colleges and seats, and it may empanel independent rating agencies [3]. This is close to the Committee's call for an autonomous accreditation body [1].
• Penalties are graded: the MARB can issue warnings, impose fines, cut intake or recommend withdrawal of recognition [3]. Under the 2023 Assessment and Rating Regulations, it can fine institutions up to ₹1 crore [7].
• No longer an elected body: a Commission set up by the Centre replaced the MCI's largely elected body, which was criticised for disproportionate private representation [1][3].

Where it falls short

• It has stepped back from personal liability: in October 2026 the NMC de-notified MSMER, 2023 [5]. MSMER allowed fines of up to ₹5 lakh on faculty and administrators who gave false information [6]. At UG-only colleges, whoever certifies "ghost faculty" now pays nothing personally.
• The rules are inconsistent: personal fines still apply at PG colleges under the PG Medical Education Regulations, 2023 [8]. The same false record carries a different risk depending on the college.
• The overlap was fixed bluntly: having the UG and PG Boards evaluate colleges did duplicate the MARB's role under the Act [3]. The NMC could have amended that clause and kept the penalty.
• Its tools are blunt and its decisions opaque: cutting intake or withdrawing recognition hurts students more than errant managements. Withdrawing a rule without public reasons repeats the accountability deficit that discredited the MCI [1].

Way forward

• Move the personal-penalty clause into the MARB's own regulations, and apply the same liability at UG and PG colleges.
• Start using the independent rating agencies the Act allows [3], and publish reasons whenever a regulation is withdrawn.

Overall, the NMC has corrected the MCI's structural failures, but good structure without firm enforcement risks repeating the old pattern. Restoring individual accountability and making rules transparently would realise the 2016 Committee's vision of autonomy balanced with accountability. That would also support the quality of doctors India needs to meet SDG 3.