Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : ss. 2, 12 – Contempt of Court – Punishment for – Appellant unauthorizedly constructed a structure which deviated the plans sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation – Demolition order passed, however, the same was not carried out by the appellant – Contempt petition against appellant – Order passed suspending the appellant’s licence to practice medicine – On appeal, held: Punishment of suspension of licence could not be given under the 1971 Act – Power to punish a registered medical practitioner for misconduct rest exclusively with the body envisaged under the 1956 Act and the 2019 Act – Punishment handed down to the contemnor is entirely foreign to the Act, thus, unsustainable – Court in awarding such punishment showed complete disregard for the statutory text of the 1971 Act – Judgment and order by the court’s below set aside – Licence of the appellant to practice medicine revived – Medical Council Act, 1956 – National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A perusal of the provisions of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 as well as the now repealed, Medical Council Act, 1956 shows that the power to punish a registered medical practitioner for “misconduct” rest exclusively with the body envisaged under this Act. The Act itself provides for an exhaustive, complete mechanism to revoke the licence of a registered practitioner for professional misconduct. The same may be done after holding an inquiry and complying with the principles of audi alterum partem. [Para 8][1178-C]
1.2 The punishment handed down to the contemnor is entirely foreign to the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and, thus, unsustainable. The Court, in awarding such punishment showed complete disregard for the statutory text of the 1971 Act, which is abundantly clear in respect of the punishment that can be imposed thereunder. [Para 20][1182-D]
1.3 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 1971 Act and the latter is under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. [Para 21][1182-E]
1.4 The Division Bench in the impugned judgment did not consider or discuss this issue nor was any final decision taken by the Single Judge in the subject contempt proceedings.The judgment of the court’s below are set aside. The licence of the appellant, to practice medicine is revived. [Paras 22 and 25][1182-F; 1183-B]
1.5 The appellant submitted before the High Court that the requisite demolition has been carried out with the exception of approximately 250 mm in the rear portion of the concerned building as, removal of the same would have rendered the building, legally constructed, to be unsafe. In respect of the unauthorized construction that remains, an undertaking be furnished before the concerned High Court that remedial construction to safeguard the soundness of the existing building and the consequent demolishing of the unauthorized construction would be completed within a reasonable time. [Para 24][1182-G-H; 1183-A]
Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor 1945 AC 264; C.S. Karnan, In re (2017) 7 SCC 1; Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC
374 : [1974] 2 SCR 282; W.B. Administrative Tribunal v. SK. Monobbor Hossain (2012) 11 SCC 761; Prashant Bhushan, In re (2021) 3 SCC 160 : [2020] 8 SCR 510; Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V Dabholkar (1975)
2 SCC 702 : [1976] 1 SCR 306 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.