Judges at India's Supreme Court have raised concerns over a medical institution in Uttar Pradesh's Etah district that was reported to be operating from a handful of rooms set within an open field. A report on the steps taken by police against the institution — which authorities described as fraudulent — was placed before the court when the matter came up for hearing.
At the centre of the case is Mahmudpur Nagariya village in Etah district, where a medical college was reportedly running its operations out of a structure of two or three rooms situated amid open farmland. Bhagwan Das Singh Baghel, who held the position of college chairman, had a background as a tea vendor. When questioned by officers, he indicated that Satendra Kumar held ownership of the institution and that his own involvement had been confined to signing paperwork connected to it.
Among the programmes reportedly on offer at the institution were a Diploma in Pharmacy, a Bachelor of Pharmacy degree, a BSc in Nursing, the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery qualification, and a General Nursing and Midwifery credential. Courses in medical laboratory technology at diploma and bachelor levels, along with auxiliary nurse midwifery training, were reportedly being delivered by the institution despite the absence of the mandated approvals and supporting facilities.
A newspaper report on the institution prompted police to open an investigation. Representing the Uttar Pradesh government before the bench, K. M. Nataraj — serving as Additional Solicitor General — conveyed that law enforcement steps had been set in motion against Satendra Kumar, named as the prime accused, along with three others. A separate inquiry into the matter had also been initiated, he informed the court.
The matter of fraudulent medical institutions entered the proceedings through a petition brought before the Supreme Court by a student from Amity University in Noida. Midway through the proceedings, the bench raised on its own initiative concerns about how private and deemed universities were being run. Queries were directed at both central and state authorities concerning how private universities are set up and operated, along with the nature of any resources or advantages made available to them.
Two justices — Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N. V. Anjaria — issued guidance from the bench that prospective students confirm the accreditation status of any institution they plan to attend before completing enrolment. The court also indicated that advisories directed at students and their families should direct them to confirm that any institution under consideration holds proper accreditation and operates as a legitimately recognised body.
Following a ruling that also endorsed the police action taken against the institute, the University Grants Commission and affiliated higher education bodies were ordered to issue advisories warning students and parents about fraudulent educational institutions. Regulators across all relevant bodies were placed under a separate directive from the bench to issue students with periodic advisories. A directive also went out to the UGC to draw up clear guidelines aimed at preventing comparable incidents from recurring.
