Karnataka High Court
WP/24213/2026 of MR VEENA S REDDY Vs UNION OF INDIA on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010535552026 NC: 2026:KHC:48885-DB WP No. 24213 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 24213 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 24213 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
MS.VEENA S. REDDY,
D/O H.V.SRINIVAS REDDY,
OCC: STUDENT,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT K.E.B. LAYOUT, HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SATEESH N KOTTALAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110 011.
2.
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (NMC),
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY,
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8,
DWARKA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI-110 077.
3.
MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE (MCC),
THROUGH THE DIRECTOR/CONCERNED AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 011.
4.
SRI LAKSHMI NARAYANA INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES (SLIMS),
OSUDU, AGARAM VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
KUDAPAKKAM POST,
PUDUCHERRY-605 502.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SAFALYA S WAGLE, CGC FOR R1;
SMT.NIREEKSHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING
NO.U015(29)/6/2024-UGMEB (8258629) DATED 15.07.2026 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H ETC.
THIS
WRIT PETITION, COMING ON
FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a cancer survivor and no relapse of the illness has taken place. However she requires medical attention. It is stated that due to her being a native of Bengaluru, Kannada is her mother tongue and she is not able to effectively communicate with the hospital staff at Puducherry where respondent No.4-Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Science is situated. Admittedly this is the second year
HC-KAR
of medical education of the petitioner. The petitioner suffers from no disability which may have been overlooked at the time of the allotment of the college after due counselling.
3. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to the provision of Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 20231, a copy of which has been produced today by a memo which is taken on record, to contend that no student designated to a Medical Institution, notwithstanding anything stating in those regulations, shall seek migration to any other Medical Institution. Though it is sought to be demonstrated that the aforesaid Regulation 18 was struck down by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C).1712/2025 on 04.02.2026, however it has been pointed out that the decision of the Delhi High Court is challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).11023/2026, in which, by an order dated 07.04.2026, the Supreme Court observed that instead of declaring Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Regulations, 2023, ultra vires the Constitution, the High Court could have 1 The Regulations
HC-KAR
read it down suitably to protect the interests of individuals who are entitled to the benefit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. However, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner-Commission to grant the prayer of the first respondent for migration, presumably in view of the fact that the candidate was entitled to the benefit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Moreover, operation of paragraph Nos.53 and 56 of the judgment of the Delhi High Court which declare Regulation 18 of the aforesaid Regulations ultra vires, and make certain directions, has been stayed.
4. It is not the case of the petitioner that she is afflicted with any disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The ground seeking migration is hit by the bar of Regulation 18 of the aforesaid Regulations. This writ petition, is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4