Supreme Court Orders Equal Internship Stipend for Indian and Foreign Medical Graduates

India's Supreme Court has intervened decisively in a long-standing dispute over internship stipends, ruling that medical graduates who studied abroad must receive equal payment to their Indian-trained counterparts during their internship year. In a hearing on 17 September 2026, the Court directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) and state governments to ensure parity in stipend amounts and ordered immediate payment of all pending dues within two weeks, with threats of contempt proceedings against officials who fail to comply. This ruling affects thousands of MBBS interns across the country and clarifies that the location of medical training does not justify unequal compensation for identical clinical work.

What the Supreme Court Ordered on Internship Stipend Parity

On 17 September 2026, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and M. Pancholi passed orders in 13 separate petitions concerning unpaid internship stipends. The Court's central finding was unambiguous: there cannot be any difference in stipend payment between Indian medical graduates (IMGs) and foreign medical graduates (FMGs) performing the same duties for the same hours. Justice Kumar stated plainly that both are doctors; the only distinction is where they studied.

The Court directed Rajasthan to disburse all pending stipends within two weeks and warned that if the state failed to comply, the state secretary would be summoned to court and contempt proceedings would be initiated. Similar orders were issued to Gujarat and other states with outstanding payments. The bench also asked the NMC to file a corrected affidavit clarifying the true status of stipend payments across all medical colleges, noting that the Commission's earlier claims contradicted evidence presented by petitioners' advocates.

Why This Matters for MBBS Interns and Medical Graduates

For MBBS interns, this ruling provides legal protection against discriminatory payment practices. Many interns—particularly those who completed their medical degree abroad—have been working without stipend or at reduced rates compared to their Indian-trained peers, despite performing identical clinical duties. The Court acknowledged that interns often remain silent about non-payment because they fear it may affect their postgraduate admission prospects or relationships with faculty members who may later evaluate them.

The ruling also establishes a precedent that stipend is not a discretionary benefit but a right. The Court rejected arguments from states that budgetary constraints justified non-payment, pointing out that if a state uses the services of doctors (interns), it must pay them. This principle applies to all undergraduate medical interns across India, not just the 13 petitioners in this case. For future batches of MBBS students, this judgment should prevent similar discrimination.

The Scale of the Stipend Non-Payment Problem

The extent of non-payment has been contested between the NMC and petitioners' advocates. The NMC claimed in its affidavit that only 7 out of 756 medical colleges were not paying stipends. However, petitioners' counsel presented a compiled analysis of 443 colleges showing that only about 50% were actually paying stipends to interns, while the rest were not. This discrepancy prompted Justice Kumar to warn the NMC counsel that if the affidavit was false, the Court would summon the NMC Director.

The problem is not uniform across India. In some states like Kerala, no colleges were reported to be paying stipends to foreign medical graduates, while in Rajasthan only a few colleges were doing so. In Jharkhand, the disparity was stark: Indian medical graduates received ₹30,000 as stipend while foreign medical graduates received only ₹17,500 for the same work. These regional variations suggest systemic policy failures rather than isolated incidents.

How the NMC and States Have Failed to Implement Earlier Orders

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has intervened on this issue. In 2023, the Court had already directed the NMC to file a tabulated chart showing whether stipends were unpaid in 70% of medical colleges. In November 2024, the NMC issued show-cause notices to 198 institutes for failing to comply with directives to upload stipend payment details. Yet despite these actions, the problem persisted into 2026.

The Court also noted that some states, including Rajasthan, had been obtaining affidavits from interns in which they agreed not to claim stipends or approach the Court—a practice the bench found deeply troubling. Additionally, Rajasthan claimed that although budgetary funds had been sanctioned, they had not been released due to budgetary allocation constraints. The Court rejected this excuse, observing that if a state sanctions funds but does not release them, the responsibility lies with the state government, not with interns.

What Happens If States Do Not Comply Within Two Weeks

The Supreme Court made clear that non-compliance would trigger contempt proceedings. Specifically, if stipends are not paid within two weeks, the state secretary responsible for health and welfare must appear in person before the Court to show cause why contempt charges should not be filed. This is a serious legal consequence that can result in fines or imprisonment for the official.

The Court also indicated that it may examine whether states should appoint retired judges to oversee stipend payment compliance, or whether a dedicated regulatory body (such as a fee regulation commission) should be tasked with this responsibility. This suggests the Court is considering structural reforms to prevent future delays and ensure accountability.

The NMC's Role and Accountability Going Forward

The NMC has been directed to file a final, corrected affidavit detailing the true status of stipend payments across all medical colleges. The Court made it clear that if the NMC's affidavit contradicts the evidence presented by petitioners, the Court will take action against the Commission. This puts significant pressure on the NMC to conduct a genuine audit rather than relying on self-reported data from colleges.

The NMC's earlier circular already mandated parity between Indian and foreign medical graduates in stipend payment, yet this directive was not enforced uniformly. The Court's order now makes it the NMC's responsibility to ensure that all medical colleges—both government and private—comply with this parity principle. Colleges that continue to discriminate may face penalties or loss of recognition.

Practical Implications for Current and Future MBBS Interns

For interns currently in the field, this ruling provides a legal basis to demand payment of pending stipends. If your college or state has not paid your internship stipend, or has paid you less than your Indian-trained peers, you now have a Supreme Court order backing your claim. You should approach your college administration or state health department with a copy of this order and demand immediate payment.

For future MBBS batches, this judgment should prevent discriminatory practices from the outset. Medical colleges will be aware that the Supreme Court is actively monitoring compliance, and the threat of contempt proceedings against state officials should incentivize timely payment. However, vigilance remains necessary—if your college or state attempts to delay or deny stipend payment, you should document the issue and consider approaching the NMC or filing a complaint with the appropriate authority.

Why the Court Emphasized That Interns Are Afraid to Speak Up

Justice Kumar made a pointed observation during the hearing: interns work 15–16 hours per day but remain silent about non-payment because they fear it may harm their postgraduate admission prospects. This fear is not unfounded—interns worry that if they complain, the head of department or faculty members may give them poor evaluations or recommendations, which could affect their NEET-PG score or counselling outcome.

The Court's acknowledgment of this power imbalance is significant because it validates the experiences of many interns who have suffered in silence. By issuing a strong order backed by contempt proceedings, the Court has attempted to shift the power dynamic and protect interns from retaliation. However, interns should still be cautious: document all communications, seek support from senior colleagues or mentors, and consider filing complaints through official channels rather than confronting authorities directly.

What This Means for Medical Education Policy in India

This ruling reflects a broader judicial stance that medical education and training are not privileges but professional obligations that must be fairly compensated. The Court's insistence on parity between Indian and foreign medical graduates also sends a message that the location of medical training should not determine a doctor's rights or compensation during their training period.

The judgment may also influence future policy discussions around internship duration, stipend amounts, and the status of interns in the medical hierarchy. If the Court follows through on its suggestion to appoint retired judges or a dedicated regulatory body to oversee stipend compliance, this could lead to a more transparent and accountable system for managing intern welfare across India.

Frequently asked questions

If you are an MBBS intern or have completed your internship without receiving full stipend payment, this Supreme Court order provides legal backing for your claim. Document your case, approach your college or state health department with a copy of the order, and do not hesitate to file a formal complaint if payment is not made within the two-week deadline. Watch for updates on whether states comply with the order and whether the NMC files its corrected affidavit.