Supreme Court Allows Doctors to Resume Studies: Ankita Kailash Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 8th October 2020

Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 660-662 of 2020 (@ SLP (Crl.)Nos. 3083-3085 of 2020)

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Vineet Saran, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can restrictions placed on an accused person’s movement and education during bail be justified if they hinder their fundamental rights? The Supreme Court of India recently considered this question in a case involving three doctors accused of abetting suicide. The core issue was whether the High Court’s conditions restricting the doctors’ entry into their college and suspending their medical licenses were valid, especially when it impacted their education. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran, and Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Uday Umesh Lalit authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the suicide of Dr. Payal Tadvi, a postgraduate student at Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai. The appellants, Dr. Ankita Kailash Khandelwal, Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja, and Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehare, were her seniors and were pursuing their M.D. in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. Dr. Tadvi committed suicide on May 22, 2019. Subsequently, her mother filed a complaint alleging that the appellants had harassed her daughter, leading to her suicide. This prompted the registration of Crime No. 157 of 2019 against the appellants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999.

Following the FIR, the appellants were suspended by the Dean of the Hospital and the College on May 27, 2019. They were arrested on May 29, 2019, and the investigation was later transferred to the Crime Branch. After a detailed investigation, a 1200-page charge sheet was filed. The appellants’ bail application was initially rejected by the Sessions Court, but the High Court granted them bail on August 9, 2019, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included restrictions on leaving Mumbai without court permission, reporting to the Crime Branch, not entering the jurisdiction of Agripada Police Station (particularly their college and hospital), and suspension of their medical licenses.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially faced rejection of their bail application by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, they appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court, while granting bail, imposed stringent conditions, including restrictions on their movement and professional practice. The High Court also took suo moto cognizance of the fact that the statements of material witnesses had not been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court ensured that such statements were recorded to prevent the witnesses from being influenced. The High Court later relaxed some conditions but maintained the restriction on entering their college and hospital. This led to the appellants filing interim applications seeking further relaxation, which were partially allowed. Ultimately, the appellants approached the Supreme Court against the non-relaxation of the condition preventing them from entering their college and hospital.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with abetment of suicide. It states, “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the IPC: This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This Act aims to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999: This section penalizes ragging within or outside educational institutions. It states, “Whoever directly or indirectly commits, participates in, abets or propagates ragging within or outside any educational institution shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.”
• Section 6 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999: This section deals with the procedure for dealing with complaints of ragging. It states, “(1) Whenever any student or, as the case may be, the parent or guardian, or a teacher of an educational institution complains, in writing, of ragging to the head of the educational institution, the head of that educational institution shall, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, within seven days of the receipt of the complaint, enquire into the matter mentioned in the complaint and if, prima facie, it is found true, suspend the student who is accused of the offence, and shall, immediately forward the complaint to the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area in which the educational institution is situated, for further action.”
• Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section allows courts to impose conditions while granting bail.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

The Supreme Court considered these provisions in light of the fundamental rights of the appellants and the need for a fair trial.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were multifaceted, addressing various aspects of the case:

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the conditions imposed by the High Court, particularly the restriction on entering their college, infringed upon their right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• They contended that the conditions were arbitrary and not in the interest of justice, citing the decisions in Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2013] 15 SCC 570 and Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another [2018] 16 SCC 74.
• They emphasized that they had completed two years of their three-year course and needed only nine more months of residency to complete their studies.
• The appellants offered to pursue their studies at another medical college in Mumbai if returning to their original college was not feasible.
• They argued that since statements of all material witnesses had been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there was no risk of them influencing the witnesses.
• They also submitted that the order of suspension was not based on the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee but on the FIR and that the suspension by the Maharashtra Medical Council was revoked.

State of Maharashtra’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the appellants could pursue their post-graduation after the conclusion of the trial and that there was no pressing urgency to allow them to migrate or resume their studies.
• They emphasized that the trial should be expedited and concluded within ten months from the date of framing of charges.
• The State also highlighted the existence of the suspension order and the apprehension of witnesses being influenced if the appellants were allowed to return to the college.

Medical Council of India’s Submissions:

• The Medical Council of India (MCI) stated that migration of students undergoing post-graduate medical courses was not permissible under any circumstances.
• The MCI clarified that the examples cited by the appellants were exceptional cases and that students must complete their course under the supervision of a particular guide.

Complainant’s Submissions:

• The complainant argued that the suspension order was based on the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee and that the appellants should not be allowed to resume their studies while the suspension was in force.
• They also raised concerns about the possibility of witnesses being influenced if the appellants were allowed to return to the college.

College and Hospital’s Submissions:

• The College and the Hospital submitted that the suspension order was based on the opinion of the Anti-Ragging Committee.
• They also reiterated the MCI’s stance that migration was not permissible.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was right in imposing the condition that the appellants shall not enter the jurisdiction of Agripada Police Station and more particularly, Topiwala National Medical College (B.Y.L. Nair Ch. Hospital).
2. Whether the Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019 was valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2013] 15 SCC 570* to emphasize that conditions imposed during bail should be reasonable and not arbitrary. The court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to fundamental rights, including the right to liberty under Article 21.
• The Supreme Court cited Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another [2018] 16 SCC 74* to highlight that conditions imposed under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be in the interest of justice and not be arbitrary or fanciful. The conditions should promote good administration of justice and advance the trial process.
• The Court considered Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 34 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 in the context of the charges against the appellants.
• The Court analyzed the suspension order in light of Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 and found that the order was not valid.
• The Court considered Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the context of the conditions imposed during bail.
• The Court emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to pursue education.

Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reasoned that the conditions imposed by the High Court were unduly restrictive and infringed upon the appellants’ right to education, which is a part of their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the appellants were not convicted and were presumed innocent. The Court also found that the suspension order was not based on the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, and was therefore not valid. The Court also considered that the statements of all material witnesses had been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that the majority of the witnesses were permanently employed by the college and hospital, making it unlikely that the appellants could influence them. The Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice and concluded that the appellants should be allowed to resume their studies.

The Court observed, “Even a convict is allowed to have academic pursuits while undergoing sentence and develop his potential as a human being to the fullest. The State apparatus must facilitate such pursuits rather than hamper any attempts in that behalf.”

The Court also stated, “The Appellants, therefore, by any standard, are entitled to continue their courses of study subject to the caveat expressed earlier.”

The Court further noted, “While balancing the competing claims, in our view, the Appellants must be allowed to go back to their courses of study otherwise the pendency of prosecution against them will add further penalty in the form of prejudicing their career. Any such adverse impact will negate their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the fundamental rights of the appellants and the need for a balanced approach to justice. The court emphasized the following points:

• Right to Education: The court recognized that the conditions imposed by the High Court were infringing upon the appellants’ right to education, which is a part of their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Presumption of Innocence: The court reiterated that the appellants were presumed innocent until proven guilty and were entitled to all fundamental rights.
• Validity of Suspension Order: The court found that the suspension order was not based on the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, and was therefore not valid.
• Lack of Risk of Influencing Witnesses: The court noted that the statements of all material witnesses had been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that the majority of the witnesses were permanently employed by the college and hospital, making it unlikely that the appellants could influence them.
• Need for a Balanced Approach: The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice and concluded that the appellants should be allowed to resume their studies.
• Career Prospects: The court considered the career prospects of the appellants and noted that preventing them from completing their studies would add an additional penalty to the pendency of the prosecution.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects included the circumstances of the case, the status of the witnesses, and the career prospects of the appellants. The legal considerations included the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, and the conditions imposed during bail.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Balancing Act: The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
• Right to Education: The Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and should not be unduly restricted.
• Reasonable Bail Conditions: Conditions imposed during bail should be reasonable and not arbitrary orfanciful. They should be in the interest of justice and promote the good administration of justice.
• Validity of Suspension Orders: Suspension orders must be based on valid legal provisions and not merely on the registration of an FIR.
• Presumption of Innocence: The judgment reiterates that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to all fundamental rights.
• Importance of Academic Pursuits: The court emphasized that even convicts are allowed to pursue academic activities and develop their potential to the fullest.
• Expedited Trials: While the court acknowledged the need for expedited trials, it clarified that the issue of framing charges should be considered purely on merits.

Practical Implications:

• This judgment sets a precedent for future cases where bail conditions might impact the educational pursuits of the accused.
• It provides a framework for courts to assess whether bail conditions are reasonable and in the interest of justice.
• It emphasizes the need for educational institutions to follow due process when suspending students accused of misconduct.

Potential Future Impact:

• The judgment may influence the way courts impose bail conditions, particularly in cases involving students or professionals.
• It may lead to a more nuanced approach to balancing the rights of the accused with the need for a fair trial.
• It may encourage educational institutions to review their suspension policies and ensure they are in line with legal requirements.