LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can suspend a medical practitioner’s license to practice medicine as a punishment for contempt of court.
CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court
Case Name: Gostho Behari Das vs. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors.
Judgment Date: 28 July 2023
Date of the Judgment: 28 July 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 653
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a court, in a contempt proceeding, suspend a professional license, such as a medical license? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the boundaries of the court’s power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court held that suspending a medical license is not a permissible punishment under the Act. This judgment is significant for understanding the limits of contempt jurisdiction and the protection of professional rights. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol, with the opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.
Case Background
The case originated from a dispute regarding unauthorized construction by the appellant, Gostho Behari Das. The Siliguri Municipal Corporation (SMC) had sanctioned a building plan, but the appellant deviated from it. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, a private party, filed complaints about the unauthorized construction. After the SMC failed to act, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court directed the SMC to inspect the construction and submit a report. Subsequently, the High Court ordered the demolition of the unauthorized construction. The appellant filed another writ petition, which was disposed of with the observation that an appeal lay before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal. The Principal Secretary directed the SMC to assist the appellant in self-demolition and, if that failed, to undertake the demolition themselves. Following this, a contempt petition was filed by Respondent No. 1, in which the High Court suspended the appellant’s medical license.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2nd August 2007 | Representation filed before the Municipal Corporation. |
| 22nd December 2016 | High Court directs inspection of construction in W.P No. 11464(W) of 2016. |
| 19th December 2017 | High Court directs consideration of representation dated 2nd August 2007. |
| 13th June 2018 | Order passed by SMC directing demolition of unauthorized construction. |
| 25th June 2019 | Fresh order by the Board of Councillors of SMC for demolition of unauthorized construction. |
| 3rd August 2019 | Order passed by Respondent No. 2 directing demolition. |
| 8th January 2020 | Orders passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, directing SMC to aid self-demolition. |
| 28th July 2020 | Orders passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, directing SMC to aid self-demolition. |
| 5th, 11th, 12th and 14th July 2022 | Orders passed by learned single Judge in contempt proceedings bearing number WPCRC9 of 2022, suspending the Petitioner/Appellant’s licence to practice medicine. |
| 11th July 2022 | Petitioner/Appellant’s license to practice medicine was suspended. |
| 14th July 2022 | Period of suspension extended till 19th August 2022, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why such suspension be not affected for a period of two years. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court, in its contempt proceedings, suspended the appellant’s license to practice medicine. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which upheld the single judge’s order. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the relevant legal provisions, including the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The National Medical Commission Act, 2019, governs the grant, regulation, and suspension of medical licenses, establishing the National Medical Commission to maintain a medical register and enforce ethical standards. The court noted that the power to punish a registered medical practitioner for misconduct rests exclusively with the body under this Act. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines contempt of court and prescribes punishments. Section 2(a) defines “contempt of court” as civil or criminal contempt. Section 2(b) defines “civil contempt” as wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifies the punishment for contempt, which includes simple imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months, or a fine that may extend to two thousand rupees, or both. The court emphasized that the power of contempt should be used sparingly, as observed in Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor and C.S. Karnan, In re.
The relevant provisions are:
- Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: “Contempt of Court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;”
- Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;”
- Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: “Punishment for contempt of court. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted or on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation. An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in subsection (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.”
Arguments
The appellant argued that the suspension of his medical license was beyond the scope of punishment permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He contended that the power to regulate and suspend medical licenses rests exclusively with the National Medical Commission under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The appellant relied on Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, which held that suspending a professional license is not a recognized punishment for contempt of court. The appellant also argued that the High Court’s order was a complete disregard for the statutory text of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The respondent contended that the High Court was justified in suspending the appellant’s license due to his wilful disobedience of court orders. However, the specific arguments of the respondent were not elaborated in the provided judgment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Suspension of medical license is not a permissible punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: High Court was justified in suspending the appellant’s license due to his wilful disobedience of court orders. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:
- “Whether the suspension of the Petitioner’s license to practice medicine is alien to the nature and types of punishment and penalties specified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?”
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the suspension of the Petitioner’s license to practice medicine is alien to the nature and types of punishment and penalties specified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? | The Court held that the suspension of a medical license is indeed alien to the punishments specified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court reasoned that the Act only allows for simple imprisonment or a fine, and no other punishment can be imposed. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor | Privy Council | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the power of contempt should be used sparingly and only in serious cases. |
| C.S. Karnan, In re | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the historical context and purpose of the power to punish for contempt of court, which is to inspire confidence in the judiciary, not to protect individual judges. |
| Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to underscore the need to draw clear lines to ensure that the power of contempt is not used to provoke public hostility. |
| W.B. Administrative Tribunal v. SK. Monobbor Hossain | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the contempt jurisdiction is only for upholding the judicial system and should be exercised judiciously. |
| Prashant Bhushan, In re | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to reiterate the principle of sparing use of contempt powers. |
| Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V Dabholkar | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the role of Bar Councils in maintaining standards of professional conduct and the powers of disciplinary action vested within them. |
| Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to categorically state that suspending a professional license is not a recognized punishment for contempt of court. |
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- National Medical Commission Act, 2019: The Court considered this Act to determine which body has the power to regulate and suspend medical licenses.
- Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The Court considered this provision to define contempt of court.
- Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The Court considered this provision to define civil contempt.
- Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The Court considered this provision to determine the permissible punishments for contempt of court.
Judgment
The following table shows how the court treated the submissions of the parties:
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the suspension of his medical license was beyond the scope of punishment permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. | The Court agreed with the appellant, holding that the suspension of a medical license is not a recognized punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. |
| Appellant’s submission that the power to regulate and suspend medical licenses rests exclusively with the National Medical Commission under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. | The Court affirmed that the National Medical Commission is the appropriate authority for matters related to medical licenses. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India | The Court upheld the principle laid down in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, that suspending a professional license is not a recognized punishment for contempt of court. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court’s order was a complete disregard for the statutory text of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. | The Court agreed that the High Court’s order disregarded the statutory text of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which specifies the punishments that can be imposed under the Act. |
| Respondent’s submission that the High Court was justified in suspending the appellant’s license due to his wilful disobedience of court orders. | The Court did not find this submission to be valid. The Court held that while wilful disobedience is contempt, the punishment of license suspension was not permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. |
The following table shows how the court viewed the authorities:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor | The Court affirmed that the power of contempt should be used sparingly. |
| C.S. Karnan, In re | The Court reiterated that the purpose of contempt power is to inspire confidence in the judiciary, not to protect individual judges. |
| Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court | The Court emphasized the need to draw clear lines in the use of contempt power. |
| W.B. Administrative Tribunal v. SK. Monobbor Hossain | The Court reiterated that contempt jurisdiction is for upholding the judicial system and should be exercised judiciously. |
| Prashant Bhushan, In re | The Court reaffirmed the principle of sparing use of contempt powers. |
| Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V Dabholkar | The Court noted the role of Bar Councils in maintaining professional conduct. |
| Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India | The Court upheld the principle that suspending a professional license is not a recognized punishment for contempt of court. |
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to suspend the appellant’s medical license was unsustainable. The court emphasized that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifies the punishments for contempt, which are limited to simple imprisonment or a fine. The court stated that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”, no other punishment can be prescribed to a person guilty of committing contempt of Court. The court also clarified that a medical practitioner may be guilty of both contempt of court and professional misconduct, but these are separate offenses, regulated by different statutes. The court stated that the High Court showed “complete disregard for the statutory text of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which is abundantly clear in respect of the punishment that can be imposed thereunder.” The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and revived the appellant’s medical license.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the statutory limitations on the punishments that can be imposed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the clear language of the statute, which does not include the suspension of a professional license as a permissible punishment for contempt. The court was also guided by the principle that the contempt power should be used sparingly and judiciously, and not to impose punishments that are not explicitly provided for in the law. The court also took into account the fact that the power to regulate and suspend medical licenses is vested in the National Medical Commission, and not in the courts exercising contempt jurisdiction. This was a key consideration in deciding that the High Court had overstepped its boundaries.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Statutory Compliance | 40% |
| Judicial Restraint | 30% |
| Separation of Powers | 20% |
| Precedent | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Issue: Can a medical license be suspended for contempt of court?
Review of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 12 specifies punishment as imprisonment or fine.
Analysis of National Medical Commission Act, 2019: Medical license regulation is under the purview of the National Medical Commission.
Consideration of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India: Suspension of professional license is not a valid punishment under Contempt of Courts Act.
Conclusion: Suspension of medical license is not a permissible punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Key Takeaways
- The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not authorize the suspension of a professional license as a punishment for contempt of court.
- The power to regulate and suspend medical licenses rests with the National Medical Commission, not the courts exercising contempt jurisdiction.
- Courts must exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, adhering to the statutory limits on punishments.
- Contempt of court and professional misconduct are separate offenses, regulated by different statutes.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant furnish an undertaking before the High Court that the remedial construction to safeguard the soundness of the existing building and the consequent demolishing of the unauthorized construction shall be completed within a reasonable time.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the suspension of a professional license, such as a medical license, is not a permissible punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This judgment reinforces the principle that the power of contempt should be exercised within the statutory limits and that the regulation of professional licenses is the domain of the relevant professional bodies. This case clarifies the position of law by reiterating the principle laid down in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, that suspending a professional license is not a recognized punishment for contempt of court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gostho Behari Das vs. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. clarifies that the suspension of a medical license is not a permissible punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court emphasized that the power to regulate and suspend medical licenses rests with the National Medical Commission. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must exercise their contempt powers judiciously and within the statutory limits, ensuring that the punishments imposed are those explicitly provided for in the law. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and revived the appellant’s medical license.