Bombay High Court Seeks Detailed Explanation Over Large Faculty Vacancies at AIIMS Nagpur
Bench takes suo motu cognisance after RTI data shows widespread vacancies
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Central government to provide a detailed explanation for significant faculty shortages at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Nagpur, following evidence that multiple recruitment drives have failed to fill sanctioned posts. The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode in the course of a public interest litigation (PIL) registration triggered by media reporting and Right to Information (RTI) disclosures.
The court noted that the vacancy situation is not limited to Nagpur. RTI-derived figures presented to the bench indicate that across 11 AIIMS institutions nearly four out of every 10 sanctioned faculty positions — approximately 40 percent — remain unfilled. Specifically at AIIMS Nagpur, 137 out of 373 sanctioned faculty posts (36.7 percent) were reported vacant. The bench observed that such a level of understaffing can adversely affect both healthcare delivery and medical education at premier public institutions.
How the case reached the bench and the nature of the petition
The PIL was registered after media reporting on January 2, 2026 drew attention to the pattern of vacancies at AIIMS institutions nationwide. The bench took suo motu cognisance based on information obtained through RTI applications, which revealed the extent of unfilled posts across the AIIMS network and specifically quantified the shortfall at AIIMS Nagpur.
In court, it was recorded that the vacancy crisis has been contemporaneously identified through formal information requests, giving the bench a factual basis to treat the issue as one of public interest that merits judicial oversight.
Court appointments and submissions on recruitment efforts
To assist the court in scrutinising the problem, an amicus curiae was appointed. The bench designated senior counsel Jugal Kishore Gilda as amicus curiae, who will be assisted by advocate Shaunak Kothekar. In open court, the amicus informed the bench that the recruitment process at AIIMS Nagpur has been underway for nearly one-and-a-half years, during which five separate attempts were reportedly made to fill the sanctioned faculty positions. Despite these multiple rounds of recruitment, a substantial number of posts remain vacant.
The amicus curiae also flagged broader administrative and operational concerns affecting the institute, which the bench has directed should be formally placed on record for comprehensive judicial review.
Central government’s response in court
On behalf of the Central government, counsel Mugdha Chandurkar submitted that, relative to some other AIIMS institutions, the vacancy situation in Nagpur was comparatively less severe and that several posts had already been filled. The bench’s directions indicate that such contentions must now be substantiated with documentary material and formal responses to the RTI-derived allegations.
Court directions, timelines and next steps
The bench has ordered that all relevant issues be recorded on the court file and has directed the amicus curiae to prepare and submit a comprehensive written note within two weeks. The Central government has been granted a further three weeks thereafter to file its detailed response. The matter has been listed for a further hearing after three weeks from the date of the bench’s order.
These procedural directions aim to bring a structured evidential record before the court so that judicial scrutiny can assess whether administrative steps taken to address the vacancies are adequate and whether further intervention is warranted to protect patient care and medical education standards.
Implications for patient care and medical education
The figures presented to the bench underscore a staffing shortfall at high-capacity public medical institutions. While the court has not issued findings on causation or the adequacy of existing remedies, the bench expressed concern that persistent vacancies could compromise the ability of AIIMS hospitals to cope with rising patient loads and to maintain educational standards for medical trainees.
By converting RTI disclosures into a formal judicial proceeding through a registered PIL, the bench has signalled the need for transparent, accountable responses from administrators and the Centre. The appointment of an independent amicus curiae further introduces an expert lens to examine recruitment processes, administrative practices, and operational constraints that may be obstructing timely faculty appointments.
Reporting and documentation
medichelpline earlier reported the RTI data that formed the factual basis for the court’s suo motu action. The court has now converted that material into a matter of public record by registering the PIL and seeking structured submissions from both the amicus and the Central government.
As the case progresses, the written note from the amicus and the Centre’s formal response will be crucial documents. They will form the evidentiary core upon which the bench can evaluate administrative explanations, recruitment histories, and the adequacy of measures taken to fill sanctioned posts at AIIMS Nagpur and other AIIMS institutions showing similar shortfalls.
The court’s forthcoming hearings will determine whether further judicial remedies are necessary to ensure uninterrupted healthcare delivery and to uphold the integrity of medical education at these national institutes.