HC Cannot Suspend Licence Of A Registered Medical Practitioner For Misconduct As It Falls With National Medical Commission: Apex Court
The Supreme Court on Friday while setting aside the orders of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has revived the license of a registered medical practitioner which was suspended by the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The bench was of the opinion that such a punishment could not have been handed down under the Act as it falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and therefore is unsustainable.
A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol thus observed," A medical practitioner guilty of contempt of Court may also be so for professional misconduct but the same would depend on the gravity/nature of the contemptuous conduct of the person in question. They are, however, offences separate and distinct from each other. The former is regulated by the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the latter is under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019".
While citing W.B. Administrative Tribunal v. SK. Monobbor Hossain (2012) 11 SCC 76, the bench also stated, "The Court has time and again asserted that the contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majority of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hypersensitive or swung by emotions but must act judiciously".
In the matter the Court after a perusal of the provisions of the Act as well as the now repealed, Medical Council Act, 1956 was of the opinion that the power to punish a registered medical practitioner for “misconduct” rest exclusively with the body envisaged under this Act.
It further noted that the Act itself provides for an exhaustive, complete mechanism to revoke the licence of a registered practitioner for professional misconduct which can be done after holding an inquiry and complying with the principles of audi alterum partem.
The Court held, "...this Court has no hesitation in holding that the punishment handed down to the contemnor is entirely foreign to the Act and, therefore, unsustainable. The Court, in awarding such punishment showed complete disregard for the statutory text of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which is abundantly clear in respect of the punishment that can be imposed thereunder".
The bench also referred to Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, which reads, "Suspending the licence to practice of any professional like a lawyer, doctor, chartered accountant etc. when such a professional is found guilty of committing contempt of court, for any specified period, is not a recognized or accepted punishment which a court of record either under the common law or under the statutory law can impose on a contemner in addition to any of the other recognized punishments".
The bench also noted that subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Contempt Act only prescribes simple imprisonment, not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Rs.2,000 as punishment for contempt.
Cause Title: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
