Medical education strives on merit, translucency, and justice—principles embedded in the rule of law. Yet, when bureaucratic discretion erodes clearly defined policies, it dangers derailing both individual careers and public healthcare aims. The recent High Court ruling against the capricious denial of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to in-service doctors for sponsored DNB admissions brings this contrast into sharp emphasis.
The court insisted that administrative authorities cannot exercise unrestrained discretion in matters impacting professional advancement. Refusing NOCs without clear, logical, and uniform criteria erodes the constitutional guarantee of equality and justice. Such actions not only erode doctors’ right to career progression but also enfeeble the healthcare system by restricting access to specialized training.
This reinforces a critical message: discretion must operate within the boundaries of law, not personal or cloudy decision-making. For medical education to serve national health interests, governance must be guided by constancy, responsibility, and honour for legal principles. Endorsing the rule of law ensures that medical professionals are authorized—not obstructed—in their pursuit of brilliance, finally benefiting patients and the public at large.
Rule of Law vs Bureaucratic Discretion in Medical Education
Date: