Medical License Suspension in Contempt Proceedings Overturned by Supreme Court

The present case involves a complex legal battle concerning the suspension of a doctor’s medical license in contempt proceedings. The key question before the Supreme Court was whether the suspension of a medical practitioner’s license could be imposed as a punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appeal was filed by Gostho Behari Das against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the suspension of his license to practice medicine.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from unauthorized construction by the appellant, which was in violation of the plans sanctioned by the Siliguri Municipal Corporation (SMC). A private party, Dipak Kumar Sanyal, repeatedly lodged complaints regarding the unauthorized structure, but no action was taken. Frustrated with the inaction of the authorities, he filed a writ petition before the High Court.

On 22nd December 2016, the High Court directed SMC to inspect the construction and submit a report. Subsequent hearings resulted in orders directing the demolition of the unauthorized structure. Despite these orders, no action was taken, leading the respondent to file a contempt petition.

During the contempt proceedings, the High Court, in its order dated 11th July 2022, suspended the appellant’s license to practice medicine. This period of suspension was later extended, with a show cause notice asking why the suspension should not be made effective for two years.

Legal Issues in the Case

The key legal question before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the suspension of a medical practitioner’s license can be imposed as a punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?

The legal framework governing medical practice in India is outlined in the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. This Act provides an exclusive mechanism for taking disciplinary action against medical practitioners, including revoking licenses for professional misconduct.

On the other hand, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines contempt as:

Civil contempt: Willful disobedience of court judgments, orders, or directions.
Criminal contempt: Acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court.

The Act prescribes punishment in the form of simple imprisonment for up to six months or a fine up to two thousand rupees.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant contended that:

The power to suspend a medical license rests exclusively with the National Medical Commission.
Suspending a medical license does not fall under the purview of punishments specified under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Previous Supreme Court rulings, including Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (1998), held that courts could not impose punishments not recognized under the law.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent argued that:

The appellant had shown continuous disregard for court orders.
The suspension of his license was necessary to ensure compliance.
The punishment was justified given the circumstances of contempt.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had overstepped its authority in imposing a punishment not recognized under the Contempt of Courts Act. The judgment highlighted key legal precedents:

The punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act is limited to imprisonment or fine.
Suspending a professional license is a disciplinary action reserved for the governing body of that profession.
The authority to regulate medical practitioners rests solely with the National Medical Commission.

The Court ruled:

“Suspending the license to practice of any professional like a doctor when such a professional is found guilty of committing contempt of court is not a recognized punishment under the law.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court and restored the appellant’s medical license.

Implications of the Ruling

This judgment sets a precedent on the limits of contempt jurisdiction. It reinforces that courts must adhere to prescribed statutory punishments and cannot impose penalties beyond their legal authority.

By reaffirming the principle that professional regulatory bodies alone have the authority to suspend licenses, the ruling protects professionals from arbitrary judicial orders that fall outside the prescribed legal framework.

Petitioner Name: Gostho Behari Das.
Respondent Name: Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Siliguri, West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 27-07-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: gostho-behari-das-vs-dipak-kumar-sanyal-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-27-07-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category