LI Network
Published on: 31 July 2023 at 11:30 IST
The Supreme Court, delivered a significant verdict, stating that a medical practitioner’s license cannot be suspended as a penalty in contempt proceedings.
The division bench comprising Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol clarified that while a medical practitioner found guilty of contempt of court may also be subject to professional misconduct charges, the two offenses are distinct and regulated separately by different laws.
The case under consideration was an appeal against the judgment of a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had upheld various orders of a single bench suspending the appellant’s medical license as a penalty in contempt proceedings.
The appellant was accused of constructing a structure without authorization, deviating from the plans sanctioned by the Siliguri Municipal Corporation.
The central question before the Apex Court was whether suspending the petitioner’s medical license was appropriate under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Supreme Court took note of the National Medical Commission Act of 2019, which governs the issuance, regulation, and suspension of medical practice licenses in India.
The Act empowers the National Medical Commission to take disciplinary action against registered medical practitioners for professional misconduct.
The revocation of a medical license involves a detailed inquiry and provides an opportunity for a fair hearing for the practitioner before any decision is made, as observed by the Court.
The Court reiterated the importance of using the power of contempt judiciously and sparingly, emphasizing that it is meant to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. The punishment for contempt, as outlined in Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, is limited to fines and simple imprisonment.
The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the orders of both the division bench and the single bench, ruling that the punishment of suspending the appellant’s medical license was not in line with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court held that such a penalty was entirely foreign to the Act and, as a result, unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant’s medical license was reinstated.
