Madras High Court
Dr.S.Kumar vs ) Medical Council Of India on 4 September, 2023
W.P.No.18954 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE.V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.18954 of 2014
and M.P.No.2 of 2014
Dr.S.Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1) Medical Council of India,
Rep. By its Deputy Secretary,
Pocket – 14, Section -8.
Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077
2) Ethics Committee,
Medical Council of India,
Rep. By its Chairman,
Pocket – 14, Section -8,
Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077
3) The Tamil Nadu Medical Council,
Represented by its President,
No.914, Poonamalle High Road,
Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106
____________
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18954 of 2014
4) Aarupadai Veedu Medical College and Hospital,
Represented by its Dean,
Pondy Cuddalore Main road, Kirumam pakkam
Bahour Commune Panchayat,
Puducherry 607 402 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in
impuged Show cause notices No.MCI-211(2)(48)(CBI-7)/2013-
Ethics/106349 dated 08.05.2014 and No.MCI-211(2)(48)(CBI-7)/2013-
Ethics/118200 dated 7.07.2014 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jenasenan
For R-1 : Mrs.Shubharanjani Ananth,
Standing Counsel
******
ORDER
(The order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J. and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
This writ petition challenges the show cause notice issued by the
Medical Council of India, making certain allegations against the doctor.
2. Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the concerned Authority to initiate action is only the State Medical
Council and not the Medical Council of India.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18954 of 2014
3. This very question was put in issue before the Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court in W.P.No.11429 of 2012 (AS)...etc. in a batch. By
a detailed judgment, the Bombay High Court had dismissed the writ
petitions, holding as follows:-
“37. We are in complete agreement, therefore,
with Mr.Gole that the Council has original and
appellate power as well in terms of the IMC
Regulations. Once these Regulations and all the
chapters thereof are read together and harmoniously, it
is evident that nothing which is a misconduct or an
infamous conduct, can go without a disciplinary
enquiry and unpunished. If the larger public interest is
to be served and bearing in mind the role of medical
practitioners and physicians, then such comprehensive
regulations and measures have to be enacted. Having
enacted them, a meaning will have to be placed on its
clauses enabling the Councils to deal with the
misconduct and/or infamous acts. That would be
advancing the remedy. A narrow or restricted
interpretation is likely to frustrate and defeat the IMC
Act itself. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18954 of 2014
learned counsel for the Petitioners insofar as the
jurisdiction, power and authority of Council are
concerned.”
4. The said matter was put in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in SLP(Civil) No.32464 of 2015. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, by an order dated 30.11.2015 had declined to entertain the SLP and
the SLP was dismissed.
5. We have independently gone through the provisions and we are of
the firm view that the erstwhile Medical Council of India had the power,
both original as well as appellate, in matters of discipline. We therefore
come to a conclusion that the Medical Council of India had the jurisdiction
to issue the show cause notice. At the stage of challenge to a show cause
notice, we cannot go into the merits of the allegations made by the
petitioner. The petitioner can raise the issue of jurisdiction alone. That
argument failing, the writ petition has to fail.
6. Having being satisfied with the jurisdiction, we are of the view that
the petitioner may submit his explanation, if not already submitted. The
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18954 of 2014
State Ethics Committee, which is a body under the State Medical Council,
pursuant to the show cause notice that has been issued, shall initiate and
complete the disciplinary proceedings, in terms of Section 27 of the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
7. In case response has not been submitted, then, the response shall be
submitted within a period of four(04) weeks from today, i.e. 04.09.2023. It
is open to the writ petitioner to raise all contentions excepting those relating
to jurisdiction as it has been concluded by an order of this Court. The entire
exercise shall be completed by the second respondent within a period of
twelve(12) weeks thereafter. With the above directions, this Writ petition
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
(J.N.B.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)
04.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citration: Yes / No
sts
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18954 of 2014
J.NISHA BANU,J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
sts
To:
1) The Deputy Secretary,
Medical Council of India,
Pocket – 14, Section -8.
Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077
2) The Chairman,
Ethics Committee,
Medical Council of India,
Pocket – 14, Section -8,
Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077
3) The President,
Tamil Nadu Medical Council,
No.914, Poonamalle High Road,
Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106
Order made in
W.P.No.18954 of 2014
Dated:
04.09.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
