"Replacing the MCI with the NMC was meant to end regulatory capture, yet questions of accountability remain." Critically examine this statement.

The National Medical Commission Act, 2019 repealed the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. A selected NMC replaced the elected MCI from 25 September 2020 [2]. The reform did reduce the medical profession's control over its own regulator. But the 2026 withdrawal of MSMER-2023 shows that accountability is still weak.

How the NMC curbed regulatory capture

• The profession's grip was loosened. The MCI was elected by practitioners. All 25 NMC members are appointed by the Centre, and a Search Committee recommends the Chairperson and part-time members [4].
• Approving colleges and rating them were split. Section 16 creates four Autonomous Boards, including a separate Medical Assessment and Rating Board [3]. This answers Parliament's 2016 finding of a conflict of interest: the MCI both approved colleges and judged their quality [5].
• The handover was clean. The 1956 Act was repealed and the interim Board of Governors was dissolved [2].

Where accountability is still weak

• Control has shifted to the government. About 80% of NMC members are nominated, not elected. Making the Centre the appeal authority "does not fit" separation of powers [6].
• A regulatory vacuum. MSMER-2023 was withdrawn with immediate effect from 17 October 2026, and no single regulation replaced it. Fines of up to ₹1 crore on colleges and ₹5 lakh on individuals for false records have lapsed. So have the written enforcement and appeal timelines [1].
• Colleges' own disclosures go unchecked. Annual faculty and patient-load disclosures now carry no penalty for lying, which risks ghost faculty. Activists are demanding independent verification [1].
• The Boards are weakened. The Boards act subject to Commission regulations (Sec. 16(2)), so the gap blunts the rating board [3].

In fairness

• Input-heavy norms on land and buildings raise costs. Doctors are already scarce, at 1:1674 against the WHO norm of 1:1000 [5]. So rigid rules do need reform. But fines for false records punish dishonesty, not a shortage of buildings.

The NMC has reduced capture by the profession, but it has not yet built strong accountability of its own. The way forward:

• notify a replacement regulation quickly;
• set up the independent accreditation body recommended in 2016 [5];
• create a Medical Appellate Tribunal [6];
• publish live faculty registers;
• have the Committee on Subordinate Legislation review the withdrawal.

Together these would make the NMC transparent and answerable, as the 2019 reform intended.