The closure of the MBBS programme at the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME) marks a disturbing moment in Jammu & Kashmir’s educational journey – not merely because a medical college has been paralysed, but because of how and why it happened. Coming in the wake of sustained communal agitation, the decision raises unavoidable questions about regulatory autonomy, constitutional morality, and the future of higher education in a region already starved of opportunity.
At the heart of this episode lies an uncomfortable truth: what began as a merit-based admission process was transformed into a political spectacle, and what concluded as a “regulatory action” bears the unmistakable imprint of pressure politics.
A Decision in the Shadow of Agitation
Officially, the withdrawal of permission to run the MBBS course has been justified by the National Medical Commission (NMC) on grounds of “deficiencies” in infrastructure, faculty, and clinical facilities. Yet this explanation cannot be read in isolation. The timing of inspections, the speed of the decision, and the political theatre surrounding the issue demand closer scrutiny.
It is significant that the inspection leading to the withdrawal was a surprise inspection, reportedly conducted with minimal prior notice. Such inspections, while legally permissible, are rare at this stage of a newly approved institution’s first academic cycle. Faculty members have since questioned whether deficiencies, if any, were structural or transitional, and why these were not flagged during earlier inspections that resulted in the grant of permission.
Regulatory failure cannot be retrospectively corrected by sacrificing students. Doing so converts oversight lapses into humanitarian crises.
Bowing to Majoritarian Pressure
What distinguishes this case from routine regulatory action is the political environment in which it unfolded. The protests that preceded the closure were not about patient safety, academic standards, or medical ethics. They were explicitly framed around religious identity – who got admitted, who “deserved” the seats, and who supposedly funded the institution.
Reports indicate that the agitation quickly moved beyond demands for procedural review to calls for closure of the institution itself. Public marches, sit-ins and memoranda framed the issue not as one of regulatory compliance but of religious entitlement, placing extraordinary pressure on both the administration and regulators. The escalation transformed a merit list into a political fault line.
SMVDIME is a statutory public institution, not a private religious trust. Admissions were conducted under national norms, within a domicile-heavy framework. Yet, the demand was not reform; it was reversal. Not improvementbut exclusion.
Multiple legal commentators have pointed out that the Shrine Board is a statutory body and not a religious trust in the private law sense. As such, its institutions are bound by constitutional obligations of equality and non-discrimination. Donor sentiment, however emotive, cannot override Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, nor can it determine access to publicly funded professional education.
When a medical college is shut down after such protests, the message sent is dangerous: that loud mobilisation can succeed where constitutional process should prevail.
The Human Cost: Students and Families in Limbo
Lost in this political contest are the students, many first-generation learners, and their families. For them, SMVDIME was not a symbolic battleground but a hard-earned opportunity. Years of preparation, financial sacrifice, and emotional investment have now been replaced by uncertainty. Official assurances that students will be “shifted” to other colleges may be administratively convenient but are socially hollow. Medical education is not a transferable commodity.
Displacement disrupts academic continuity, clinical exposure, mentorship, and peer networks, while also straining mental health and imposing new financial and logistical burdens, particularly on families from conflict-affected or economically fragile backgrounds. Even “supernumerary accommodation” carries psychological and material costs that official reassurances rarely acknowledge.
For a region where access to professional education has historically been constrained, the closure deepens a sense of institutional unreliability. Parents are left wondering: If even a government-backed medical college can collapse midstream, what is safe to trust?
Was the Institute Really Unfit?
SMVDIME did not emerge overnight. It received clearance after inspections, was permitted to admit students through a centralised NEET-based process, and functioned publicly as a recognised medical institution. If the deficiencies cited were truly grave enough to justify closure, why were they not identified earlier, or why were admissions allowed to proceed at all?
A serious inquiry must distinguish genuine regulatory concerns from political expediency. Accountability cannot rest solely with the institution; it must extend to approving authorities, inspection teams, and administrative leadership that granted permission and allowed academic activity to commence. Either regulatory oversight failed at the approval stage, or enforcement became reactive under external pressure. In neither case can responsibility be shifted onto students. Selective enforcement, especially when it follows public agitation, erodes regulatory credibility. Standards must be enforced before admissions, not after communal tempers flare.
What Should Be Done: Beyond Displacement
Saving the future of education in J&K requires more than redistributing students like surplus files. Several urgent steps are necessary:
Transparent Disclosure: The NMC must place inspection reports, timelines, and compliance gaps in the public domain. Regulatory opacity only fuels suspicion.
Time-Bound Rectification, Not Closure: Where deficiencies are remediable, institutions should be given a monitored correction window rather than being shuttered outright.
Student-Centric Safeguards: Students must be treated as stakeholders, not collateral damage. Options such as on-site continuation under supervision should have been explored.
Institutional Insulation from Political Pressure: Regulatory bodies must be visibly insulated from street-level mobilisation. Otherwise, governance by protest replaces governance by law.
Reaffirming Constitutional Neutrality: Public educational institutions cannot be repurposed as identity projects. Articles 14 and 15 are not optional ideals; they are binding principles.
Jammu & Kashmir remains acutely short of medical seats and healthcare professionals, with doctor-patient ratios below the national average and persistent out-migration of medical aspirants. In such a context, closing a functioning medical college, rather than correcting it, represents a policy failure that runs counter to both developmental logic and public health priorities.
Political Reactions: A Divided Response
The political response to the closure of SMVDIME has mirrored the deeper fault lines exposed by the episode.
Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, criticised the decision as a serious setback for Jammu’s educational future, questioning why alleged deficiencies were not flagged before admissions were allowed. He condemned public celebrations over the shutdown and assured that efforts would be made to accommodate affected students elsewhere, even as he acknowledged the disruption such displacement entails.
Iltija Mufti described the episode as a troubling manifestation of majoritarian prejudice, arguing that merit-based admissions were deliberately communalised. She warned against legitimising religious exclusion in public institutions and called the celebration of the college’s closure morally indefensible.
Leaders of the Congress in J&Kechoed these concerns, arguing that students were being penalised for administrative and regulatory lapses, and demanding accountability from approving and inspection authorities rather than displacement of learners.
At the Centre, leaders of the BJP welcomed the NMC’s action, framing it as an assertion of regulatory discipline and quality control. The Union government maintained that the decision was purely regulatory, offering no substantive response to questions about timing, prior approvals, or the influence of sustained political agitation, an omission that has only deepened public scepticism.
A Test of Constitutional Resolve
The SMVDIME episode is not merely an administrative lapse or a regulatory misjudgement; it is a test of the Republic’s commitment to constitutional governance. When access to public education becomes vulnerable to identity-based mobilisation, institutions cease to be instruments of social advancement and begin to mirror the anxieties of the loudest crowd.
Medical colleges are not just sites of professional training. In regions like Jammu & Kashmir, they represent public faith in opportunity, stability, and state responsibility. Shutting down such an institution under the shadow of communal pressure does not safeguard standards; it signals that merit can be overridden, procedures bent, and futures unsettled when politics intrudes upon regulation.
If regulatory authority is perceived to follow agitation rather than due process, every public institution stands exposed to ideological veto. Such precedents do lasting damage, not only to students and families immediately affected, but to the broader idea that the State can act as a neutral guarantor of rights and fairness.
The real challenge before governance today is not the enforcement of standards alone, but the courage to do so consistently, transparently, and insulated from political coercion. Jammu & Kashmir’s path forward depends on restoring confidence in institutionsby reaffirming that equality is non-negotiable, merit is indivisible, and constitutional values are not subject to popular approval.
History will judge this moment not by how decisively the State acted, but by whether it acted justly.