A+ in Homoeopathic Education: What 2025–26 Grading Reveals

The publication of the grading of Homoeopathic Medical Colleges for the Academic Year 2025–26 marks an important development in the evolution of homoeopathic medical education in India. Undertaken through an assessment process by the Quality Council of India (QCI) for the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Homoeopathy (MARBH) under the National Commission for Homoeopathy (NCH), the exercise places institutional quality under a structured national framework. The assessment framework developed with QCI incorporates evidence across 84 sub-parameters under 11 broad criteria, bringing documentation, infrastructure, academic processes, clinical training and institutional systems within a common assessment framework.

The scale of the exercise is significant. India has 291 Homoeopathic Medical Colleges recorded in the published document. Of these, 197 colleges underwent rating, while rating was not conducted for 94 colleges. The document further records three colleges that refused rating, 44 colleges that were non-operational during the 2025–26 academic session and 47 colleges that were not eligible for rating, including institutions that had not completed five years of establishment and standalone postgraduate institutes.

The 197 rated institutions represent a diverse institutional landscape. The published list includes Government colleges, Government-aided institutions, private colleges, private institutions with deemed-university status and institutions classified as Government/National Institute. This diversity is important because the grading exercise does not place the entire responsibility for institutional quality on one category of management. Instead, it provides a common reference through which institutions operating under different administrative and financial structures can be viewed within the same broad quality framework.

At the top of the grading spectrum is the A+ category, which has been awarded to 39 of the 197 rated colleges. The distribution of these institutions provides an interesting picture of the geographical spread of higher-rated homoeopathic medical education in the country. The A+ institutions are not concentrated in a single State or institutional model; rather, they are distributed across several regions, with particularly visible clusters in western and southern India. The published list records A+ institutions in Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.

The distinction between Government and private institutions within the A+ category is also noteworthy. Of the 39 A+ institutions, four are classified as Government colleges, while one is classified as Government-aided. The remaining 34 are in the private/private-deemed category. The four Government A+ institutions are located in Gujarat, Kerala and West Bengal. The published list records Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Karaparamba, Kozhikode, Kerala as the A+ Government institution from South India.

The geographical pattern becomes particularly interesting when South India is considered separately. Twelve A+ institutions are located in South India. Karnataka accounts for seven, Tamil Nadu for three, Kerala for one and Telangana for one. Andhra Pradesh does not have an institution in the A+ category in the 2025–26 list. The Karnataka A+ group comprises seven private institutions, while Tamil Nadu has three private/private-deemed institutions, Telangana has one private institution and Kerala has one Government institution.

Outside South India, 27 A+ institutions are distributed across Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Gujarat has the largest concentration, with 13 A+ institutions, followed by Maharashtra with nine. Rajasthan has two A+ institutions, Uttar Pradesh one and West Bengal two. Gujarat’s A+ group is notable for containing both private institutions and Government/Government-aided institutions, while Maharashtra’s A+ institutions in the published list are private.

Yet the significance of the exercise lies beyond the number of A+ institutions. A national grading system becomes meaningful only when it is understood as an instrument for quality assurance, institutional self-assessment and continuous improvement, rather than merely as a hierarchy of colleges. The very purpose of bringing institutions under common assessment parameters is to encourage systematic documentation, identify institutional strengths and deficiencies, and create a measurable basis for improvement. NCH has described its wider approach to assessment and rating as part of strengthening quality assurance and transparent assessment mechanisms in homoeopathic medical education.

The results also underline the considerable diversity that exists within homoeopathic medical education. Among the 197 rated colleges, the published grading distribution records 39 A+, 20 A, 20 B+, 20 B and 98 C institutions. This spread should prompt a more substantive conversation about institutional capacity rather than a narrow fascination with the highest grade. A grade is, after all, a snapshot within a particular assessment cycle; the more enduring measure of an institution is its ability to sustain and improve the standards that the assessment seeks to capture.

For students and prospective students, the grading exercise introduces a new dimension of publicly available institutional information. For colleges, it provides an opportunity to examine their academic, clinical, infrastructural and administrative systems against defined parameters. For regulators, the aggregate picture may offer valuable insight into regional and institutional variations and help inform future quality-improvement initiatives. For the profession itself, it creates a basis for moving the conversation from broad assertions about the state of homoeopathic education towards evidence-based institutional assessment.

There is, however, a larger question that the publication of these grades leaves before the sector. What happens after the grade is announced? Recognition should ideally become a starting point rather than an endpoint. An A+ institution must continue to demonstrate that the standards reflected in its assessment are sustainable, while institutions in the other grades have an opportunity to identify gaps, strengthen systems and progress through subsequent assessment cycles. The real value of a grading system is ultimately measured not by the number of certificates issued, but by the improvements it generates within classrooms, laboratories, hospitals, libraries, research centres and academic administration.

The 2025–26 grading exercise therefore deserves to be viewed as more than a table of grades. It represents an attempt to introduce a national quality lens to homoeopathic medical education. The participation of QCI in the assessment process for MARBH, coupled with a structured framework and evidence-based data capture, signals a movement towards greater standardisation and institutional accountability.

The immediate headlines may belong to the 39 institutions that have entered the A+ category. But the more consequential story lies in the 197 institutions that have been placed under a common national quality framework—and in what the entire sector chooses to do with that information. If grading becomes a continuing process of reflection, correction and improvement, its greatest achievement will not be the creation of a league table. It will be the gradual raising of the academic and clinical standards of homoeopathic medical education across the country.

– Editor’s Desk
www.homeosite.com