Draft Proposes a Unique Identity Number for Every Doctor

Who regulates medical registration?

The National Medical Commission, or NMC, is a statutory body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It replaced the Medical Council of India under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. Four autonomous boards handle specific functions. The Ethics and Medical Registration Board, or EMRB, maintains national registers and oversees professional conduct within the statutory framework.

State Medical Councils register practitioners under relevant state arrangements. They also receive complaints and may exercise disciplinary powers. A doctor’s records can therefore involve both state and national bodies. The reform tries to connect these layers through shared digital records. It does not simply abolish the role of State Medical Councils.

What the National Medical Register does

The National Medical Register, or NMR, is intended as a live database of licensed doctors. The government launched its online portal in August 2024. Registration uses identity and qualification checks involving the doctor, the relevant college, State Medical Council and NMC. An Aadhaar-linked process was designed to reduce duplication and improve verification.

A dependable register can show whether a practitioner has a recognised qualification and active licence. It can also record additional qualifications and status changes. Patients should be able to verify core professional details without seeing unnecessary personal data. Health planners can use aggregated information for workforce analysis. The accuracy of those uses depends on timely updates.

What the 2026 draft would change

The draft would attach one unique identification number, or UID, to every practitioner on a State Medical Register. The number would remain linked with the national record. State councils would continue processing registration and verification. Their registers would synchronise with the NMR. This structure aims to reduce repeated procedures when a doctor works across state boundaries.

The proposal also seeks a common view of disciplinary orders and licence status. A suspension in one place should not remain invisible elsewhere. Doctors already registered would have a route to update their information. Foreign medical graduates would still need to meet applicable qualification and screening requirements. A digital number cannot replace those substantive conditions.

The draft also addresses the period and renewal of licences. Any final system must send advance reminders and provide a workable renewal route. Temporary technical failure should not abruptly remove a lawful practitioner from active status. Clear appeal and correction procedures are equally important. A wrong database entry can affect both livelihood and patient care.

Benefits for patients and doctors

Patients currently encounter confusing registration numbers and scattered council websites. A single searchable identity could make verification easier. Hospitals and insurers could check credentials against the same authoritative record. Doctors moving between states may face less repeated paperwork. Public agencies could also trace impersonation and false qualifications more quickly.

National mobility may help services recruit across state lines. However, a register does not create doctors in underserved districts. Rural shortages also reflect working conditions, housing, specialist support and career incentives. Workforce planning should therefore use the data without overstating its power. Better numbers can guide policy, but cannot substitute for investment.

Federal and privacy safeguards

Medical regulation involves national standards and state implementation. The system needs clear responsibility when two records conflict. State councils require training, funding and secure interfaces. Changes should leave an audit trail showing who made them and why. A national help desk cannot replace accountable decisions by the legally responsible authority.

The register will process identity, education, employment and disciplinary information. Public access should be limited to details needed for professional verification. Aadhaar numbers and contact information require strong protection. Doctors must be able to correct errors promptly. Cybersecurity testing, access controls and breach reporting should be part of implementation from the beginning.

Disciplinary transparency also needs due process. A pending complaint is not the same as a final finding. The database should distinguish allegations, interim orders, completed action and restored status. Reasons and effective dates should be accurate. This protects patients while preventing lasting harm from an outdated or misleading entry.

Conclusion

A well-designed UID can make medical credentials easier to verify across India. It can also reduce duplication and close gaps in disciplinary information. Those benefits require accurate state data and responsive correction systems. The reform must preserve due process and professional privacy. Digital centralisation is useful only when institutional responsibility remains clear.

The consultation offers doctors, councils and patients a chance to improve the design. Feedback should test ordinary cases, interstate movement and system failure. The final regulation should specify public fields, appeal routes and renewal safeguards. It should also publish an implementation plan. Trust in a national register will grow through accuracy, not through the number alone.