Bond service or Bonded Labour? Supreme Court slams States Mandatory Remote Service bond policies

Published On 2025-04-03 06:51 GMT   |   Update On 2025-04-03 07:10 GMT

Supreme Court

Advertisement

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has strongly criticized states imposing a bond on All India Quota (AIQ) MBBS students, forcing them to serve in remote areas after completing their medical courses. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, likened the mandatory bond service policies to "bonded labour," expressing concern over the practice.

The court raised concerns about the fairness of such policies, pointing out that All India Quota students are generally more meritorious than those admitted under the state quota. "How can these talented and meritorious people be treated like bonded labourers?" the bench remarked, stressing that states should not impose mandatory conditions on these students, particularly when they are being asked to serve in areas far removed from their place of origin.

According to PTI report, the apex court made the remarks in view of Uttarakhand High Court upholding a 2009 policy of the state, which mandated the All India Quota students pursuing education in medical colleges in the state to sign a bond and serve the "inaccessible" and "extremely inaccessible" areas for five years in lieu of subsidised fees.

"The students who have qualified in the All India Quota are more meritorious than those admitted under the state quota. How can these talented and meritorious people be treated like bonded labourers?" the bench observed.
Clarifying its stand, the Uttarakhand government stated that it was a voluntary bond, where those executing were allowed to complete the course on subsidised fees, while those not executing the bond were charged higher course fees. The state counsel said that those students who have executed the bond to serve the remote areas of the state for five years can wriggle out of the undertaking by paying Rs 30 lakh to the state.
While the bench lauded the objective of All India Quota, saying it was good for national integration, it noted that it was critical of states imposing mandatory conditions on them.
"The states cannot impose conditions on the students in the All India Quota and impose a penalty of lakhs of rupees for not executing the bond to serve in rural areas and treat them like bonded labourers," it said.
The counsel for the Centre contended that many states have been doing this to ensure the availability of doctors in remote areas, else no one would like to work there.
Justice Surya Kant expressed, "How can a student serve a state especially in remote areas where he does not belong?"
 "Suppose a meritorious student from Tamil Nadu takes admission under All India Quota in a college in Uttarakhand. How will he serve in inaccessible areas and extremely inaccessible areas?" he wondered.
"A patient in a remote area of Uttarakhand will not be able to convey his suffering to the doctor originally from Tamil Nadu and the doctor, despite having all his good intentions, would not be able to treat the patient. How will this work?" -- said Justice Surya Kant.
The top court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by a 2011 batch of students from a medical college in Garhwal, with the doctors who were assailing the high court order to pay the higher fees with 18 per cent interest as they did not execute the bond.
Granting relief to the medicos, the aepx court bench reduced the interest rate to nine per cent and gave them four weeks saying they were aware of the state government's policy of 2009 when they filled the admission form in 2011.
"The appellant students are meritorious candidates who competed in an All India Examination and secured their admission on merit, Even if they committed a mistake in executing a bond and paying Rs 15 thousand per year, the bond itself gave an exit door to them to wriggle out of its consequences by paying the annual fee of Rs 2.20 lakh as directed by the high court," the bench said.
It added that since the students paid the fees at a belated stage, they are undoubtedly liable to compensate the state with some interest.
"Keeping all the circumstances in view, we deem it appropriate to reduce the interest rate from 18 per cent to 9 percent simple interest per annum," the bench said.
In August last year, the 'National Task Force on Mental Health and Well-being of Medical Students', set up by the National Medical Commission (NMC) opined in its report that seat-leaving bonds and compulsory rural service bonds should be abolished. As an alternative to the seat-leaving bond, the Task Force suggested prohibiting such students from applying to medical colleges for twenty-four months from the date of leaving.

For the compulsory rural service bonds, the NMC Task Force recommended transitioning it from compulsory service to a system of positive incentives such as paying higher fees for service in rural areas, granting grace marks, providing reservations in PG or super-specialization seats for completing rural service etc.

"States continue to rely on this compulsory method to compensate for inadequate investment in health resources, playing with the lives of medical students, and public health safety at large. This approach should be avoided as a perpetual solution, as it places undue strain on public health and fails to address the root issue of resource allocation in the healthcare system. States must invest adequately in health infrastructure to sustainably meet public health needs without relying on compulsory service bonds. To alleviate the financial burden on students and foster a more nurturing educational setting, it is proposed to abolish both the seat leaving and compulsory rural service bond," the Task Force mentioned in its report.

Tags:    

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News