— Courts are required to exercise utmost restraint in matters relating to policies, discipline and other academic affairs of educational institutions — Refusing to interfere is a rule and deviation therefrom is an exception which can only be justified on the basis of clear and undisputed violation of the law — The reluctance of the courts to interfere with academic affairs is based on the foundational principle that the academicians and educational institutions are the best judges because formulating policies and eligibility criteria falls within their exclusive domain — The standards prescribed and set out in the regulations relating to academic bodies, determination of eligibility to pursue studies and other related policies are generally not open to judicial review unless they can be clearly shown to contravene the law or to be shockingly unreasonable or perverse — The courts are not equipped nor have the capacity to deal with academic matters, let alone substituting opinions formed by experts or professionals. [2024 SCLR 8 = 2023 SCP 319 = 2024 SCMR 46]

— Judicial Reforms for Medical and Dental Education — Supreme Court’s Endeavors to Enhance Transparency, Standards, and Student Welfare — Scope — The Supreme Court addressed persistent issues in medical and dental college admissions, regulations, and enforcement, aiming to rectify shortcomings for the benefit of students and the profession — Concerns included irregularities in admitting students against vacant seats, compromising merit standards, and granting extensions beyond admission deadlines — Supreme Court proposed a strict prohibition on admissions against vacant seats left by drop-out students or after the admissions deadline set by the PM&DC/PMC — It emphasized maintaining a high threshold for aggregate scores and MDCAT results, regardless of surplus seats — The court ordered a uniform academic year across provinces, synchronized with a standardized medical admissions test — It called for earlier enrollment and admissions deadlines, discouraging colleges from admitting students after set deadlines — The court underscored the importance of adhering to minimum standards for facilities, infrastructure, faculty, and inspections, linking admission capacities to compliance — The court ordered for transparency through the publication of statistics and rankings based on factors like passing rates, facilities, and compliance — It urged the removal of conflicts of interest and “regulatory capture” within PM&DC/PMC to ensure impartial regulation — The comprehensive observations aimed to foster fairness, transparency, and adherence to standards in medical and dental education, prioritizing the interests of students and the public. [2023 SCLR 72 = 2023 SCMR 2145 = 2023 SCP 316]

— Stricter Adherence To Admission Policies — Prohibiting Admissions Against Vacant Seats — Setting Cut-Off Thresholds — Ending Extensions Beyond Admission Deadlines In Medical And Dental Colleges — Scope — No admission against vacant seats left by “drop-out” students or against vacant seats left after passing of the admissions deadline set by the PM&DC/PMC should be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever — It must also be ensured that no student whose aggregate scores and MDCAT results fall below the cut-off threshold, assigned by the PM&DC/PMC for that academic year, is admitted into any medical or dental colleges — This should be done regardless of the number of vacant seats at medical or dental colleges or any other circumstances giving rise to surplus seats across the country — Additionally, the practice of granting extensions to medical and dental colleges after the expiry of the admission deadline allowed by the PM&DC/PMC must be discontinued, forthwith — Imparting medical and dental education is not a business and must not be motivated by a desire for profit maximization. [2023 SCLR 72 = 2023 SCMR 2145 = 2023 SCP 316]