CASE TITLE:
Gostho Behari Das v. Dipal Kumar Sanyal & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
28th July 2023
BENCH:
Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol
PARTIES:
Petitioner- Gostho Behari Das
Respondents- Dipal Kumar Sanyal & Ors.
SUBJECT:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is considering whether the suspension of a medical practitioner's license to practice medicine due to unauthorized construction and contemptuous behavior complies with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the case of Gostho Behari Das v. Dipal Kumar Sanyal & Ors. The National Medical Commission Act of 2019 governs the suspension of a medical license, according to the Supreme Court, which emphasizes the distinction between disrespectful behavior and professional misconduct.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
- National Medical Commission Act, 2019
- Section 2 (a) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Section 2 (b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
BREIF FACTS:
- The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgement announcrd in Calcutta HC which upheld the order passed by the single Judge in contempt proceedings where the order dated 11th July 2022 the appellant’s license to practice medicine was suspended. Additionally with order dating 14th July 2022, the appellant was asked to show cause as to why such suspension be not affected for the time period of 2 years.
- It was revealed after scrutinizing records that the appellant has without authority constructed a structure which was a deviation from the plans legally sanctioned by the Siliguri Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called SMC). Respondent 1 filed had filed numerous complaints against the unauthorized construction but to no avail.
- Finding no action taken by the Commissioner of SMC (Respondent 2) and SMC (Respondent 3), the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. Via order dated 22nd December 2016, Respondent 3 was directed to complete the construction and have its report submitted in court.
- Later, an order dated 13th June 2018 directed Respondent 3 to demolish the unauthorized construction was passed. But the order got quashed by the HC where it was observed that Respondent 2 was not the competent authority and that only Board of Councilors in SMC can pass demolition order. Subsequently, the board of councilors approved the demolition orders and directed the same to take place in order dated 25th June 2019 and 3rd August 2019.
- Distressed by the order, the appellant filed a writ petition before Calcutta HC, it got disposed of with the observation that the appeal should actually be presented before the Principal Secretary of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, West Bengal. The said authority has issued orders telling SMC to help the appellant to either demolish the construction themselves or have SMC take care of it.
- Later Respondent 1 filed a contempt petition in the same case which led to the suspension of the appellant’s medical license and hence the appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
- Is the suspension of the petitioner's medical license incompatible with the nature and range of sanctions laid out in the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The Apex Court scrutinized the present case and analyzed that the regulation and suspension of the license of a medical practitioner is governed under the National Medical Commission Act 2019, the power to punish a registered medical practitioner for misconduct behavior lied exclusively in the said Act. The dispute also involves the question of whether such punishment could be handled under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 as well.
- The court after stating the requisite sections of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 cited a few judgements to explain how contempt proceedings have been taken care of in the Courts so far. In Parshuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor 1945 AC 264- the punishment for contempt of court should be sparingly utilized only in serious cases. In addition, C.S. Karan, In re, (2017) 7 SCC 1, states that the goal of the sanctions imposed by the Court in cases of contempt of court is to avoid excessive interference with the administration of justice rather than to defend the honor of the court or the judge.
- The court cited Constitutional bench case of Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC 374 where it was held that the special jurisdiction and jurisprudence bearing on contempt power must be the particular jurisdiction and legal precedent pertaining to the contempt authority must be defined and applied with care. Severe caution on the part of the higher judicial echelons. As a result, our civilization's palladium the High Courts, the Supreme Court, and free expression must be zealously guarded even against Judiciary umbrage is a difficult but sacred duty. Whose discharge necessitates patience and exceptional separation.
- In In W.B. Administrative Tribunal v. SK. Monobbor Hossain (2012) 11 SCC 761, it was determined that the courts' contempt power is limited to upholding the vast bulk of the existing judicial system.
- With respect to the suspension of the medical license the court cited the case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India where it was held that - Suspension of a professional's license to practice, such as a lawyer, doctor, chartered accountant, etc., when such professional is found accountable for disrespecting the court, for Any particular time frame is not an acknowledged or accepted punishment that a court of record imposed either in accordance with common law or in accordance with the
- Statutory law may impose obligations on a defendant in In addition to any of the other acknowledged punishments."
- Additionally in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V Dabholkar it was stated that with respect to the power to take disciplinary actions- Regarding the etiquette and standards of professional behavior for attorneys, one of the main duties of the Bar Council is to gather grievances against advocates, and if the Bar Council has grounds to think that any attorney has committed professional misconduct or another offense It will send the case to its Disciplinary Committee for resolution Committee. One of the most important characteristics is that neither a plaintiff nor a member of the public immediately begin the disciplinary process against a supporter. It is a State's Bar Council begins the disciplinary action.
CONCLUSION:
- The SC after thorough analysis concluded that the contemnor was sentenced to a punishment that is wholly inconsistent with the Act and consequently unjustifiable. The legislative wording of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, which is extremely explicit in regard to the punishment that may be imposed under it, was completely disregarded by the Court in assigning such a punishment.
- A physician found guilty of professional misconduct may also be found guilty of contempt of court, however this would depend on the seriousness/character of the contemptuous behavior of the questioned individual. However, their offenses are distinctly different from one another. The first is governed by the 1971 Contempt of Court Act and the second is governed by the National Medical Board has jurisdiction over the latter.
- Both the Division Bench and the Single Judge in the subject contempt case did not take into account or debate this issue in the contested judgment proceedings.
