The Supreme Court recently permitted counselling for 49 postgraduate medical seats at the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (HIMSR) for the academic year 2025–26, amid a pending affiliation dispute with Jamia Hamdard University [Asad Mueed Ors. vs. Jamia Hamdard University & Ors.].
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to include the 49 PG seats of HIMSR in the counselling seat matrix, observing that students should not suffer amid the affiliation dispute.
The interim relief was granted after the petitioners informed the Court that counselling for postgraduate courses of Jamia Hamdard University was scheduled for January 29, but could not proceed for HIMSR as the University had not issued the consent of affiliation required for inclusion of seats in the counselling process.
The case arises from a long-running dispute between Jamia Hamdard University and HIMSR over control and affiliation, which is rooted in a family settlement and is currently pending arbitration.
In August 2025, an arbitral tribunal passed an interim order directing the University to cooperate in restoring medical seats at HIMSR, holding that withdrawal of consent of affiliation should not be used to frustrate the arbitral process.
That arbitral order was upheld by a single-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court and was later sought to be enforced under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, a Division Bench of the High Court, in an intra-court appeal filed by Jamia Hamdard University, set aside the enforcement order in December 2025, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
While the Supreme Court is now examining whether the High Court was justified in entertaining an intra-court appeal barred under the Arbitration Act and in interfering with the enforcement of the arbitral order, it passed the interim direction on January 27, solely to protect students’ interests, noting that the 49 PG seats would otherwise remain unfilled for the academic year.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Rajiv Shakdher, along with advocates Saket Sikri, Simran Mehta, Ekta Kalra Sikri, Kshitij Mudgal, Ajaypal Singh Kullar, Ansh Mittal, Priyansh Choudhry, Prakhar Khanna and Vikalp Mudgal.
The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Sudhir Nandrajog and K Parameshwar, along with advocates Shreyans Singhvi, Tanuja Singh, Deepak Goel, Rajiv Kumar Virmani, Shubham Pandey, Naimesh Gupta, Swaroop George, Takrim Ahsan Khan, Mobashshir Sarwar, Abhinandan Jain, Sai Kaushal, Swati Yadav, Danish Zubair Khan, Mithu Jain, Shashwat Jaiswal and Diksha Arora.
[Read Order]