Utilization of Shrine Board’s ‘surplus fund’ in SMVDU needs probe
Shivang Satya Gupta
A fresh controversy has erupted over the admission process adopted for the 50 newly sanctioned MBBS seats at the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME), with allegations gaining momentum that the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University (SMVDU) has failed to follow any established admission criterion applicable to State, Private, or Deemed institutions.
The row has once again revived questions about governance, transparency, and policy consistency in one of Jammu and Kashmir’s most prestigious higher education setups.
Established through a legislated Act in 1999 as a State University, SMVDU has always operated with a unique structure of academically autonomous but answerable to statutory provisions that govern State universities.
However, for several courses, the university has been functioning in practice like a private or even a deemed institution, reportedly filling seats on an All-India basis and crafting rules that deviate from traditional State-driven norms. Stakeholders argue that this dual identity has created recurring confusion over the years, but the issue has taken a far more serious turn with the allocation of MBBS seats to SMVDIME.
At the centre of the present storm is the University’s recent decision to fill the 50 MBBS seats, which are allocated to SMVDIME earlier this year, under Open Merit without applying Jammu & Kashmir’s mandatory State Reservation Rules or gender-based reservations that every government-run medical institution is legally required to follow. The announcement sparked instant uproar, with many questioning how a State University can bypass rules that are binding on all government institutions.
What has left critics more alarmed is the allegation that SMVDU, in this crucial matter, acted like a private university rather than adhering to its status as a State institution. While State universities must strictly apply reservation policies in admissions, private universities have greater latitude—which, observers claim, appears to be the model SMVDU leaned on. This has raised suspicions of inconsistency, selective rule application, and procedural impropriety.
Adding fuel to the fire are claims that the decision has deeply hurt the sentiments of millions of devotees of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine across the globe. The institution and MBBS College is funded through what is described as “surplus funds” of the Shrine Board, a religious institution dedicated to the Hindu faith.
Critics argue that adopting an All-India Open Merit system opens the door for a larger intake of non-local and non-Hindu students, which, according to them, defeats the emotional and cultural expectations attached to a project built from religious offerings.
While the Constitution prohibits discrimination on religious grounds, the sentiment around the Shrine’s contribution to the institute has led some groups to argue that the beneficiaries of such institutions must at least predominantly include the local population, particularly when the university itself was originally established as a State institution meant to augment regional educational capacity.
Informed sources allege that the top brass of SMVDU and SMVDIME along with the officials in the Shrine Board and even elements of the government active during the early days of the University’s establishment—have historically played “hide and seek” on key issues of governance. According to sources, the decision-making mechanisms have at times been influenced by personal interests rather than transparent policy, creating a legacy of ambiguity that continues to affect the institution today.
Those monitoring developments also believe that the alleged inconsistency in SMVDU’s operational approach is not accidental but may be part of a larger pattern. The University reportedly adopted All-India eligibility for several courses earlier, which aligned it with deemed universities and private institutions. However, when MBBS seats were allocated—a far more sensitive and competitive domain with rigid regulatory requirements—the University failed to clarify whether it would follow the norms applicable to State-run medical colleges or those followed by private or deemed institutions.
This apparent disregard for established norms has now created the possibility of serious legal entanglements. Education activists, NGOs, RTI activists and legal experts, and parents’ associations are already examining the issue closely. They assert that admissions carried out under Open Merit, in violation of mandatory State Reservation Rules, are liable to be challenged before the courts—and if challenged, could well be struck down as null and void.
Observers argue that the matter demands immediate attention from the Union Territory administration, the SMVD Shrine Board, and higher regulatory bodies. Clarity is crucial, they stress, because medical admissions fall under strictly monitored frameworks laid down by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), and State authorities. Any violation—even inadvertent—can have lasting consequences on students, institutional reputation, and the legality of degrees issued.
Concerns are also being raised that if the admissions proceed without corrective measures, students enrolled under the Open Merit system could end up suffering long-term consequences, especially if the process is later invalidated by judicial action. The entire exercise, critics argue, requires a course correction before it evolves into a major legal and administrative quagmire.
The ongoing controversy has therefore placed SMVDU and SMVDIME in a difficult spotlight. With each passing day, pressure is mounting on the concerned authorities to revisit the admission structure, issue a clear justification for the path taken, and align the seat allocation process with the criterion applicable to a State-established institution. Failing this, experts warn, the university could find itself embroiled in prolonged legal challenges that may jeopardize both the admissions and the credibility of the medical institute itself.
As the issue continues to unfold, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the allocation of 50 MBBS seats at SMVDIME demands urgent scrutiny, transparent action, and strict adherence to policy norms. Without this, the possibility of judicial intervention remains high and with it, the spectre of the entire admission process being quashed in a court of law, dealing a major blow to the institution’s reputation and the aspirations of hundreds of medical hopefuls.
