Can Six Years of MBBS Abroad Still Leave Indian Students Unable to Practise in India?

Six years of medical education, clinical training and a degree from an accredited foreign university may still not be enough for an Indian student to become a doctor back home. The problem is not necessarily the quality of the degree or the duration of the course. It may come down to a distinction that students rarely examine before taking admission: whether the country awarding their medical qualification also grants them the legal right to practise medicine independently.

This question has become the centre of a dispute involving the National Medical Commission (NMC), the Georgian authorities and Indian students pursuing medical education in Georgia. An investigation by the Press Trust of India (PTI), first published on October 31, 2026, examined differing responses issued by the NMC to candidates seeking clarification about the eligibility of Georgian medical graduates to appear for India's Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE).

The responses, dated September 24 and October 13, appeared to offer different positions on the country's independent medical licensing requirements. Legal experts have since alleged that some education consultants are using the uncertainty to assure students that their foreign degrees will qualify them to practise in India.

The controversy raises a larger question for Indian families considering medical education abroad: Does completing a degree automatically establish eligibility to become a registered medical practitioner in India? Under the existing regulations, it does not.

What Has the NMC Said, and Why Are Students Confused?

The dispute began when aspiring medical students approached the government's Public Grievance Portal to ask whether a six-year medical degree from Georgia would make them eligible to appear for the FMGE. In its September 24 response, the NMC referred to Regulation 4(b) of the Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate (FMGL) Regulations, 2021.

The provision requires foreign medical graduates to be registered with the relevant professional regulatory authority, or otherwise meet the country's licensing requirements, with the right to practise medicine comparable to that granted to citizens of the country awarding the degree. The NMC's interpretation was particularly important for students studying in Georgia, where completing the undergraduate Medical Doctor (MD) programme allows graduates to work as junior doctors under supervision.

In an October 7 report, Education Post reported that the NMC had clarified that junior doctor status would satisfy its requirements only if the status permitted the level of practice prescribed under the Indian regulations. If independent medical practice in Georgia requires additional postgraduate qualifications, the regulator indicated that junior doctor status alone would not be sufficient.

However, the PTI investigation revealed that the NMC issued another response on October 13 to a similar question. This time, the commission stated that provisions concerning independent licensing were being examined by the competent authority and an expert committee. When candidates subsequently sought clarification about which interpretation was applicable, the NMC reportedly reiterated the existing regulations without directly resolving their concerns.

PTI also sought a response from NMC Secretary Raghav Langer but did not receive one before publication. These communications have created uncertainty, but they do not establish that the regulations have been amended or that the independent licensing requirement has been withdrawn. A matter being examined by an expert committee is not the same as a regulatory exemption. Until the competent Indian authority issues a binding clarification or changes the rules, students cannot safely assume that the requirement will be relaxed.

What Does Georgian Law Actually Permit Medical Graduates to Do?

The distinction between supervised employment and independent medical practice is not merely an interpretation offered by Indian lawyers. It is reflected in Georgia's own medical legislation. Under the Georgian Law on Medical Practice, graduates of accredited medical institutions may work as junior doctors. They can perform clinical duties, but they operate under the direction and responsibility of an authorised independent medical practitioner.

Article 14(5) of the law states that junior doctors do not have the general right to practise independently. It provides limited exceptions for emergencies involving life-threatening conditions or situations in which an independent practitioner cannot be found in time. Article 7, meanwhile, links independent medical practice to obtaining a state certificate authorising the holder to practise in a recognised medical specialty.

This means that the right to work as a junior doctor and the right to practise medicine independently are different legal statuses. The distinction was already documented by the Indian government four years ago. In a revised advisory dated September 29, 2022, the Embassy of India in Yerevan explained that Georgia's undergraduate MD programme lasts six years, including clinical training during the final year.

The advisory, based on information provided by Georgian authorities, stated that graduates could work as junior doctors. Those seeking independent practice would generally need to clear the National Post-Diploma Qualification Examination, complete the relevant postgraduate residency training and obtain the necessary professional certification.

The issue, therefore, did not emerge for the first time in 2026. What has changed is that students are now questioning how these Georgian professional rights should be interpreted under India's 2021 licensing framework. Georgia's National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement (NCEQE) has defended its medical education system.

In an updated clarification published on October 14, 2026, the Georgian authority stated that its accredited six-year MD programmes meet India's academic requirements and that graduates, irrespective of nationality, are entitled to hold junior doctor positions. It also said that graduates can obtain a certificate from the Georgian medical regulatory agency confirming their eligibility to work as junior doctors. According to the NCEQE, this establishes equivalent professional rights for Georgian and foreign citizens and satisfies the NMC's licensing requirements.

That is the Georgian authority's position, not a final determination by India's medical regulator. The disagreement is over whether equal rights to supervised junior doctor employment are sufficient under an Indian regulation that the NMC has interpreted as requiring independent practice rights. Neither the Georgian authority's accreditation of a university nor its assessment of compliance with Indian regulations can, by itself, guarantee registration in India.

What Do India's Rules Require Before a Foreign Graduate Can Practise?

India introduced the FMGL Regulations on November 18, 2021, to establish minimum educational and professional requirements for foreign medical graduates seeking registration. Under Regulation 4, candidates governed by these rules must complete at least 54 months of medical education, followed by a minimum 12-month internship at the same foreign medical institution.

The programme must be taught in English and cover the prescribed medical subjects and clinical training. The regulations also require eligible foreign graduates to complete a supervised internship of at least 12 months in India and clear the applicable licensing examination. A separate requirement concerns the professional registration or licensing rights available in the country where the degree was awarded.

This is the condition at the centre of the Georgia dispute. For students governed by the 2021 regulations, a six-year programme may meet the minimum duration requirement, but its course structure, internship arrangements and professional licensing provisions must also satisfy the relevant rules. Georgia's NCEQE says its sixth year is devoted to mandatory clinical training. Whether an individual university's arrangements satisfy the NMC's precise internship requirements still requires examination of that institution's curriculum and records.

There is another important distinction concerning the date of admission. Under Regulation 5, the 2021 rules do not automatically apply to students who had already obtained a foreign medical qualification or were pursuing their studies abroad before November 18, 2021. Such candidates are governed by the earlier applicable framework, subject to relevant exemptions and subsequent directions.

This is why two students graduating from the same foreign university may face different regulatory requirements depending on when they began their medical education.

For Indian students planning to pursue medicine abroad, qualifying for NEET-UG is also mandatory under the applicable admission rules. After completing their overseas qualification, eligible graduates generally have to clear the FMGE, conducted by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), before obtaining the appropriate registration and completing the required internship in India.

Passing the screening examination does not automatically confer permanent registration. Candidates must fulfil the remaining conditions before they can practise independently. The NMC's official guidance on foreign qualifications makes this distinction clear.

What Does the FMGE Data Reveal?

The uncertainty over future eligibility should not be mistaken for evidence that all Georgian medical graduates have been prevented from taking the FMGE. Official NBEMS data shows that graduates holding primary medical qualifications from Georgia continued to appear for the examination in 2025.

According to the NBEMS FMGE Performance Report 2025, 2,204 candidates with Georgian medical qualifications appeared in the June session. Of these, 610 passed, a success rate of 27.68%.In the December 2025 session, 2,899 candidates from Georgian medical institutions appeared, and 938 passed. The pass percentage was 32.36%.

These figures establish that candidates with Georgian medical qualifications have participated in and passed India's screening examination. They do not, however, settle the present regulatory dispute. The examination results do not identify how many candidates began their medical education before or after November 18, 2021. Nor do the published country-level figures establish which licensing documents individual candidates submitted.

A candidate who studied under the earlier regulatory framework may not face the same conditions as someone who joined a foreign medical programme after the 2021 regulations came into force. Consequently, previous FMGE participation cannot be treated as a blanket assurance that every student currently enrolled in Georgia will meet the rules applicable when they graduate.

The figures also highlight another challenge. Even after completing medical education abroad, a substantial proportion of candidates do not clear the screening examination in a given session. That is an additional examination hurdle, separate from the unresolved issue of professional licensing rights.

Are Education Consultants Misleading Students?

The PTI investigation also raised questions about the role of private education consultants who facilitate admissions to foreign medical institutions. Sachin Jain, a Delhi High Court lawyer handling medical matters, alleged that some consultants were citing the NMC's October 13 response to assure students that the independent licensing requirement would eventually be withdrawn or bypassed.

According to Jain, such assurances could jeopardise students' careers if the existing requirements remain in force. Another lawyer, Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Ajay Kumar Singh, questioned the Georgian authority's interpretation of junior doctor registration, particularly because Georgian law distinguishes supervised clinical duties from independent medical practice.

These are allegations and legal interpretations reported by PTI. The available reporting does not establish that particular universities or consultants have committed fraud or that every consultant is providing misleading advice. The concern is nevertheless relevant because studying medicine abroad involves a substantial financial and personal commitment.

As Education Post previously reported, competition for medical seats in India and the cost of private medical education have encouraged students to explore universities in Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and other countries. For families unable to afford private medical education in India, a foreign degree may appear to offer a more affordable route into the profession. But affordability cannot be assessed through tuition fees alone.

If additional postgraduate qualifications, examinations or residency training are required to obtain the necessary professional licence in the country awarding the degree, students need to understand those conditions before enrolling. The consequences of discovering a regulatory problem after graduation can be substantial, particularly when the degree was pursued with family savings or education loans. Questions about foreign medical qualifications are also emerging beyond Georgia.

In September 2026, Education Post reported concerns involving 13 medical universities in Kyrgyzstan, following problems with their mandatory state accreditation. The situation raised questions over transfers, completed coursework and compliance with India's medical registration requirements. The two cases involve different regulatory issues, but both demonstrate why university admission and the eventual right to practise medicine must be assessed separately.

What Should Indian Students Verify Before Taking Admission?

Students considering medical education abroad should verify the legal and academic requirements directly rather than relying exclusively on promises made during admission counselling. First, they should establish whether the foreign university and the specific medical programme hold valid accreditation in the country where the qualification will be awarded.

Second, they should obtain written confirmation of the course structure, duration, language of instruction, clinical rotations and internship arrangements. Third, they need to understand the professional rights conferred by the qualification. In particular, they should establish whether graduates can obtain the licence required under the applicable NMC regulations without further postgraduate education, or whether additional examinations and residency training are necessary.

Students should also verify the rules applicable to their date of enrolment and seek written clarification from the NMC where uncertainty remains. The commission itself has stated that it does not endorse a blanket list of foreign medical universities for Indian students. A university's appearance in an international directory, or accreditation by a foreign authority, is not equivalent to advance approval for medical registration in India. For students already pursuing medical education in Georgia, the immediate requirement is a clear regulatory determination rather than assumptions about future exemptions.

The PTI report said legal experts had urged the Union Health Ministry and the NMC to publish clearer guidance identifying foreign qualifications that satisfy India's requirements. Such guidance would help students distinguish between legitimate opportunities for medical education abroad and qualifications whose professional recognition remains uncertain. The unresolved question is not whether a six-year Georgian medical degree has academic value. It is whether the professional rights attached to that qualification satisfy India's licensing framework.

Until the NMC resolves the issue unambiguously, Indian students considering overseas medical education face a risk that cannot be addressed simply by completing their degree or passing another examination. For a student making a six-year commitment, that distinction deserves to be understood before the first admission fee is paid.