The decision by India’s National Medical Commission (NMC) to withdraw approval for MBBS admissions at the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME) in Jammu and Kashmir has brought to a head a controversy that has simmered for nearly two months. What began as protests over the religious composition of the first batch of students has now culminated in regulatory action, raising questions about infrastructure standards, admission processes, and the intersection of education with identity politics.

How the controversy began

SMVDIME, located in Katra town of Reasi district, was sanctioned 50 MBBS seats in September 2025. As a newly established medical college, it attracted attention when admissions for its first batch were finalised. Of the 50 students admitted, 42 were Muslims. This distribution of seats immediately sparked protests in parts of Jammu, particularly among groups claiming to represent Hindu interests.

The protests began in November 2025 after the Rashtriya Bajrang Dal (RBD), a right-wing organisation, publicly questioned the admission process. The group alleged that the college had failed to adequately represent Hindus in its intake and demanded that seats be reserved for Hindu students. The issue quickly escalated, with demonstrations, political statements, and intense media coverage.

Admissions and the role of NEET

College authorities, as well as the Jammu and Kashmir government, repeatedly clarified that admissions were conducted strictly according to the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), the nationwide examination that governs entry to medical colleges across India. As per existing policy, 85 per cent of the seats at SMVDIME were reserved for candidates domiciled in Jammu and Kashmir.

Given that Muslims constitute over 65 per cent of the Union Territory’s population, officials argued that the composition of the student batch was a natural outcome of merit-based selection combined with domicile reservation. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah publicly defended the process, stating that there was no deviation from established rules and that religion had no role in admissions.

Despite these explanations, protests continued. Demonstrators questioned not just the outcome but the very purpose of the institution, arguing that a college named after the Vaishno Devi shrine, one of Hinduism’s most revered pilgrimage sites, should prioritise Hindu students.

Demands for minority status and closure

As the agitation gathered momentum, protestors broadened their demands. Some groups argued that SMVDIME should be granted minority status at the state level, a move they claimed would allow the institution to reserve seats for Hindus, whom they described as a minority in Jammu and Kashmir. Others went further, asserting that since the medical college was built using donations from pilgrims visiting the Vaishno Devi shrine, it should function exclusively for the welfare of the Hindu community.

The Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Sangarsh Samiti, an umbrella organisation of several right-wing groups, initially sought to have the merit list scrapped. When it became clear that such a step would not be legally viable, the focus shifted dramatically. The group began demanding that the medical college itself be shut down.

The controversy also drew political reactions. While Chief Minister Omar Abdullah initially stood firm in defence of the admission process, he later appealed to the BJP-led central government to consider closing the college and relocating the students to other medical institutions in order to restore calm and end the standoff.

NMC steps in

Amid this charged atmosphere, the National Medical Commission took regulatory action. The Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB), a key arm of the NMC, withdrew permission for SMVDIME to continue its MBBS programme. Importantly, the commission did not cite the protests or the religious composition of the student body as reasons for its decision.

Instead, the NMC pointed to what it described as “gross deficiencies” at the institution. In its official communication, the commission said it had received multiple complaints over the past two weeks alleging serious shortcomings. These included inadequate infrastructure, insufficient clinical material for training, a shortage of qualified full-time teaching faculty, and an inadequate number of resident doctors.

To verify these complaints, MARB conducted a surprise physical inspection of the college. Following this assessment, it concluded that the deficiencies were significant enough to warrant withdrawal of approval for the 50 MBBS seats.

What happens to the students

One of the immediate concerns following the NMC’s decision was the fate of the students already admitted. Addressing this, the commission assured that the enrolled students would be accommodated in other medical colleges within the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The BJP echoed this assurance, with party leaders stating that affected students would be transferred seamlessly, potentially through the creation of supernumerary seats in other institutions.

BJP leaders welcomed the withdrawal of approval, framing it as a necessary step to uphold educational standards. Udhampur MLA R.S. Pathania described the move as a reaffirmation of the principle of “quality over quantity,” arguing that regulatory norms must not be compromised, especially in medical education.

Politics, perception, and regulatory action

While the NMC has maintained that its decision was based purely on academic and infrastructural considerations, the timing has inevitably fueled speculation. Critics argue that the intense political pressure and sustained protests created an environment in which regulatory scrutiny became inevitable. Supporters of the decision counter that medical education demands strict adherence to standards, regardless of political context, and that any deficiencies must be addressed decisively.

The episode has highlighted the fragile balance between merit-based admissions and identity-driven politics. On one hand, the NEET system is designed to ensure uniformity and fairness across the country. On the other, regional demographics and domicile policies can produce outcomes that some groups perceive as inequitable, even when they are legally and procedurally sound.

A broader debate

The controversy surrounding SMVDIME has also reopened broader debates about the role of religion in publicly funded institutions, the interpretation of minority status, and the responsibilities of regulators in politically sensitive environments. For many observers, the episode underscores the need to insulate educational institutions from communal pressures while simultaneously ensuring that regulatory oversight remains transparent and credible.

As Jammu and Kashmir continues to navigate its complex social and political landscape, the fate of the Vaishno Devi medical college serves as a reminder of how quickly issues of education, identity, and governance can intersect. Whether SMVDIME will be able to address the deficiencies flagged by the NMC and regain approval in the future remains to be seen. For now, the focus has shifted to ensuring that students are not disadvantaged and that standards in medical education are upheld, even amid controversy.