DGME/Principal/Dean to
ensure Fair and Transparent Admission in Medical
Dr.Mukesh Yadav
Prof. & HOD,
Forensic Medicine & Toxicology
School of Medical
Sciences & Research
Sharda University,
Greater Noida, U.P.
Ph. No.08527063514
Introduction:
An eye opener judgment of SC for
puppet Directors/Principals/Deans and other authorities acting under influence
of Private Management or for their own benefit, putting Quality of Medical
Education in India.
SC punished to six faculty
members including DGME, and Dean of a Government Medical College from
Chhattisgarh on 13.12.2012.
Important Observations
of Judgment:
While disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 4318
of 2012 titled
Priya Gupta v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors., the Court not only
noticed breach of time schedule as well as various other
irregularities that were committed by the various stakeholders,
but also returned a finding as to failure of the performance of duties and
obligations by the authorities in accordance with law as stated by this Court.
The Court noticed that the case in hand
was a clear example of calculated
tampering with the
schedule specified under the regulations,
and the
judgments of the
Court with a
clear intention to grant admission to less meritorious candidates
over candidates of higher merit. To put
it simply, it was a case of favouritism and arbitrariness. The case in hand
also demonstrates how either way the career of the students of higher merit has
been jeopardised by the abuse and manipulation of provided procedure. [Para 1]
While directing initiation of proceedings under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) held as
under:
4. “We have categorically
returned a finding that all the relevant stakeholders have failed to perform
their duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time schedules
have not been
complied with, and rule of
merit has been defeated, there
nepotism and manipulation have prevailed. The stands of various authorities are at
variance with each other and none admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for
this Court to ensure proper implementation of judgments of this Court and the
regulations of the Medical Council of India as well as
not to overlook
the arbitrary and colourable
exercise of power
by the concerned
authorities/colleges.
5.
Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of proceedings against the following
under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Let notice be issued
to the following, to show cause why they be not punished in accordance with
law.
A. Additional Secretary, Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare, Union of India.
B. Dr. S.L. Adile, Director,
Medical Education.
C. Dean of the Jagdalpur College.
D. Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the
Selection Committee.
E. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Member of the
Selection Committee.
F. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of
the Selection Committee.
G.
Director General, Directorate of Health Services, Union of India.
5. Notice be issued returnable
in two
weeks, on which
day the matter shall be listed
before this Court.
Registry shall maintain separate file for that purpose.
6. All concerned authorities are
hereby directed to carry out the directions and orders contained in this
judgment, particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment forthwith. The directions shall be applicable for the academic year
2012-2013 itself.
A copy of
this judgment shall
be sent to
all concerned authorities,
forthwith, for strict compliance and
adherence, without demur and
default. [Para 54]
In furtherance to the judgment dated 8th May,
2012, the Supreme Court initiated proceedings against
the above defaulting persons under the Act and directed issuance of notice.
Upon appearance, time was prayed for on behalf of the contemnors to file their
reply affidavits and after they were filed, the contemnors were heard at some
length by the Court. The stand taken by the respective contemnors is distinct
and independent. However, the stand of contemnors “C” to “F” is somewhat
common, therefore, it would be appropriate for the Court to deal with the case
of these contemnors together. The case of contemnors ‘A’ and ‘G’ is to be
considered together and finally that of contemnor ‘B’ will be dealt with
separately. [Para 2]
First and foremost,
we would deal with the case of Dr. S.L.
Adile, whose daughter Akansha Adile is the direct beneficiary of this
entire process. In the affidavit filed by Dr. Adile, it has been averred that
he was working as a Professor of Ophthalmology in the Medical College, Raipur
till 1st August, 2006 and Dean thereafter in the same college. The Director of
Medical Education, Chhatisgarh (Dr. Bhola) retired on 31st August, 2006 and being
the senior, Dr. Adile was asked to relieve Dr.Bhola, on 8th September, 2006
temporarily.
This is how he came to be appointed as the Director
of Medical Education. The findings recorded in the order against
him which includes violation of
schedule, moulding the process of selection to
select his daughter and actually providing her a
seat in the
Medical College, Raipur has not
been disputed. However, it is
stated that he
tenders an unconditional apology
to the
Court for all the
acts of omission
and commission mentioned in the order dated 8th May, 2012. He prays for the mercy of the Court on the
ground that he was under suspension for last two years i.e. since 23rd July,
2010 and has suffered already. His
daughter was also asked to pay Rs. 5 lakhs, if she was to
continue her course
in terms of the order dated 8th
May, 2012, and
therefore, he prays
for discharge. [Para 3]
Without prejudice to the above and in the
alternative, the contention raised is that every contempt, whether initiated on application of
a party or suo motu by the Court, has to be a result of wilful disobedience of
the orders of the Court. Wilful disobedience must be proved as a matter
of fact. The directions or
guidelines issued by
this Court for
general implementation cannot invite proceedings under the Act,
if they are
not strictly adhered to. Such
guidelines may not be within the knowledge of a party and, thus, their non-compliance may
not necessarily be
a wilful disobedience of the
order of the Court bringing the case
of a contemnor within the rigours of Section 12 of
the Act. Contempt proceedings can be
initiated when an action is between the parties to a lis and not where the
Court issues general directions. [Para 4]
Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of
resolving contempt proceedings. An apology tendered at the
very initial stage of
the proceedings being bona fide and preferably unconditional
would normally persuade the Court
to accept such apology, if
this would not
leave a serious scar on the
dignity/authority of the Court and
interfere with the administration of justice under the
orders of the Court. [Para 5]
SC Observations against the conduct of DGME:
In light of the above principles, if one examines
the conduct of Dr.S.L. Adile, he is a
person who cannot plead ignorance to the directions of this Court inasmuch as he was the
officiating Director and
responsible for making admissions
not only to the college in
question, but to
all the medical colleges in the
State of Chhattisgarh. It was expected of him to conduct the admissions
strictly on merit, transparently and in adherence to the schedule and
directions contained in the judgments of
this Court.
He attempted to violate the same with impunity. He
manipulated the entire process of admission and directed his subordinates to
manage admissions of appellants, including his daughter, and on the other hand
misguided the Ministry of Health, Government of India. There was flagrant violation of the orders
of the Court which has proved prejudicial not only to the system of admission,
but even to the deserving students who in the order of merit were entitled to
get those seats. No advertisement was effected. There is nothing on record to
show that any other candidate had been informed of the date of admission. At the eleventh hour on 30th September, 2006,
the last date for admission, very cleverly admission of the two appellants was
managed by him. [Para 12]
As already noticed, the violations are admitted on
the part of this contemnor. The
tendering of apology by him, though at the initial stage of the hearings,
cannot be accepted by the Court inasmuch as violation of the
orders of the
Court is wilful,
intentional, and prejudicial. Such conduct, not only has the
adverse effect on the process of admissions and disturbs the faith of people in
the administration of justice, but also lowers the dignity of the Court by
unambiguously conveying that orders of this Court, its directions and
prescribed procedure can be manipulated
or circumvented so as to frustrate
the very object of such
orders and directions, thereby
undermining the dignity of the Court. Administration of justice is a matter
which cannot be ignored by the Court
and the acceptance of
apology tendered by
the contemnor would
amount to establishing a
principle that such serious violations would not entail
any consequences in law.
This would, thus
encourage repetition of such
offences, rather than discouraging
or preventing others
from committing offences of
similar nature as it would have
no preventive or
deterrent effect on persons for committing such offences in future. Thus,
it is not a case where the Court should extend mercy of discharging the accused
by acceptance of apology, as it would amount to encouraging similar behaviour. [Para
13]
The contemnor, Dr. Adile, while heavily
relying upon the
factum of his having been placed
under suspension by the disciplinary
authority as well as the
direction to his daughter to pay Rs.5 lacs for
continuing with the medical
course to which she was admitted,
has argued that
the Court should take a lenient
view and accept the apology. We are of
the view that such a contention cannot be of much advantage to the contemnor.
These are not the relevant factors for acceptance of an apology, however, they may be of some consideration
while imposing the punishment. [Para 14]
Now, we shall proceed to discuss the legal issues
raised on behalf of the contemnor that in such cases, the proceedings under the
Act cannot be taken recourse to. [Para 15]
It is true that Section 12 of the Act contemplates
disobedience of the orders of the Court to be wilful and further that such
violation has to be of a specific order or direction of the Court. To contend that there cannot be an initiation of
contempt proceedings where directions are of a general nature as it would not
only be impracticable, but even
impossible to regulate such orders of the Court, is an argument which
does not impress the Court. As already
noticed, the Constitution has placed upon the judiciary, the responsibility to
interpret the law and ensure proper administration of justice. In carrying out
these constitutional functions, the Courts have to ensure that dignity of the Court,
process of Court and respect for administration of justice is maintained. Violations
which are likely to impinge upon
the faith of the public in administration of
justice and the Court system
must be punished,
to prevent repetition
of such behaviour and the adverse
impact on public faith. With the development
of law, the Courts have
issued directions and
even spelt out
in their judgments, certain guidelines,
which are to
be operative till
proper legislations are enacted. The directions of the Court which are
to provide transparency in action and adherence to basic law and fair play must
be enforced and obeyed by all concerned. The
law declared by
this Court whether in the form of
a substantive judgment inter
se a party
or are directions of a general
nature which are
intended to achieve
the constitutional goals of equality and equal opportunity must be
adhered to and there cannot be an
artificial distinction drawn in
between such class of cases. Whichever class they may belong to, a
contemnor cannot build an argument to the effect that the disobedience is of a
general direction and not of a specific order issued inter se parties. Such
distinction, if permitted, shall be opposed to the basic rule of law. [Para 16]
The directions which have been issued in the cases
referred to in the main judgment clearly
provide for admission to medical courses in
order of merit, for the process
of admission to be transparent and fair,
and that there must be strict adherence
to the time
schedule specified in the
judgments. The purpose of this
is to ensure
that arbitrariness and discrimination do not creep into
this process, and
equal opportunity is ensured to the eligible candidates
applying to the medical
courses in a just and fair manner. [Para 17]
These directions are intended to serve a
greater public purpose
and are expected to be within the knowledge of all
concerned persons besides the fact that the law declared by
this Court is deemed to be known to all
concerned. The violation of general directions issued by this Court would
attract the rigours of the provisions of the Act. Whether for such violation or
non-compliance, the Court would punish a person or persons, would always depend
upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is not possible to provide
any straight jacket formula that is universally applicable to all cases. All that
we have to
examine is whether
the apology tendered is bona fide, when
examined in light
of the attendant circumstances and that it will be
in the interest of justice to
accept the same. [Para 18]
As already noticed, contempt proceedings
are intended to ensure
compliance of the orders of the Court and adherence to
the rule of
law. The directions are binding and must be obeyed by the parties and
all concerned stricto sensu. In fact, the directions of the present kind are to be placed at a higher pedestal as
compared to cases where the matter is inter se between two parties to the list [lis] as they are intended to
attain a greater purpose and
ensure adherence to rule of law in a particular
process which otherwise would be arbitrary and violative of
constitutional mandate. [Para 23]
In the case
of Asha Sharma
v. Pt B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences [(2012) 7 SCC 389], this
Court held as under:
“25. Strict adherence to the time schedule has again been a matter of
controversy before the courts. The courts have consistently taken the view that the schedule is
sacrosanct like the rule of merit and all the
stakeholders including the
authorities concerned should adhere to it
and should in no
circumstances permit its violation. This, in our opinion, gives rise to dual problem. Firstly, it
jeopardises the interest and future of the students. Secondly, which
is more serious, is that such action would be ex
facie in violation of the orders of the court, and therefore, would
invite wrath of the courts under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. In this regard, SC appropriately refer to the previous SC judgments [R] [Priya Gupta, State of Bihar
vs. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Medical Council
of India vs. Madhu Singh, GSF ] Medical
and Paramedical Assn. vs. Assn.
of Self Financing Technical
Institutes and Christian Medical College v. State of Punjab.]
Law made by the SC:
26. The judgments of this Court constitute the law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution and the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India
are statutorily having the force of law and are binding on all
the parties concerned.
Various aspects of the admission process as of now are
covered either by the respective notifications
issued by the
State Governments, prospectus
issued by the colleges and, in any case, by the regulations framed by the
Medical Council of India. There is no reason why every act of the authorities
be not done as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and why due records
thereof be not maintained. This proposition of law or this issue is no more res integra
and has been firmly stated by this Court in its various judgments which may
usefully be referred at this stage. (Ref.: State of
M.P. vs.
Gopal D. Tirthani, State of Punjab vs.
Dayanand Medical College &
Hospital, Bharati Vidyapeeth v.
State of Maharashtra, Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai
vs. State of Gujarat and Harish Verma vs. Ajay Srivastava.)” [Para 26]
In view of the above established principle, we have
no hesitation in rejecting even the other contention raised on behalf of the
contemnor. Having dealt with both the contentions raised on behalf of the
contemnor, we conclude that the contemnor, Dr. S.L. Adile, has wilfully violated the
directions of this Court and has manipulated the process of selection laid down
by this Court so as to gain personal advantage
for admission of his
daughter and the other appellant thereby causing serious prejudice to other candidates of higher merit.
Having held him
guilty of the offence of civil contempt in terms of Section 12 of the Act, we
refrain from awarding him civil imprisonment for the reasons aforenoticed and
award him a penalty of Rs.2000/- as
fine.
Contemnors (C)
to (F): Contempt
against DGME, Dean, Associate and Assistant Professor, Demonstrators [six
faculty members of the Selection Committee]
·
Ms.Amrita Banerjee Mitra, former Assistant Prof.
Physiology, Medical College Jagdalpur.
Chhattisgarh;
·
Dr.Sanjivani Wanjari, former Associate Prof.
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical
College Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh;
·
Dr. P.D. Agrawal, former Associate Prof. Radiology Medical College, Jagdalalpur,
Chhattisgarh and
·
Mr. Padmakar Sasane, former Demonstrator
Biophysics in the Department of Physiology,
Medical College Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh [Para 24]
Who will be punished?
The stand taken by these contemnors in their reply
affidavit is that Ms.Amrita Banerjee had taken
over as acting Dean on 1st November, 2006 and she had
acted in furtherance to the letters issued by the Director. While
Dr.Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr.P.D. Agrawal and Mr.Padmakar Sasane have stated that
they were members of the Selection Committee which had recommended admission of
the two appellants, they also have taken up the stand that
they had acted as per the directions of the Dean. It is further
pointed out that the Dean had constituted the
Committee and required it so as to make recommendations for admission.
On behalf of Ms.Banerjee, it is stated
that she had received a
letter from the
Director of Medical Education Office on 30th September,
2006 that the seats should
be filled according to merit upon
establishing contact with the candidates. On 30th September, 2006
itself, she had constituted the Committee consisting of the other three
contemnors and, in fact, the Committee
conducted its entire proceeding and recommended the names
of the
two candidates, i.e. Kumari Priya Gupta and Kumari Akanksha Adile and
they were granted admission on that very day i.e. on 30th September,
2006. The same was intimated to the Director of Medical Education Office vide a
letter of the same date. All these contemnors have relied
upon a judgment of this Court in the case of D.P. Gupta v. Parsuram Tiwari
[(2004) 13 SCC 746] to contend that if a person acts upon the
directions of his superior, he is not liable to be punished for contempt. In the alternative, they have also tendered
unconditional apology before this Court. [Para 25]
Firstly,
we must deal with the case of D.P. Gupta (supra). In that case, the High Court
had punished the Vice-Chancellor for
over-reaching the judgment of the High Court by exercising his power to condone
the break in service for promotion to the post of Head of
Department. The High Court also punished the Registrar
of the University who was stated to have advised
the Vice-Chancellor to act accordingly.
The Supreme Court, while
upholding the conviction of the Vice-Chancellor of the University noticed
that the person
concerned was not the acting Registrar who had advised the Vice-Chancellor but
had merely carried out the order of the Vice-Chancellor by issuing the
notification, which he was bound to
carry out.
Accordingly, the prayer of the appellant was
allowed by this Court. It is obvious
that the contemnor in that case had not done any act or advised the
Vice-Chancellor on any count whatsoever. The Vice-Chancellor had issued an
order condoning the break in service and required the Registrar to issue
notification in furtherance thereto. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court
found that he was not guilty of violating the order of the Court as he had
merely issued notification as directed.
Certainly, this case on facts has no
application to the case in hand. [Para 26]
Dean was held responsible:
The Dean of the
College was expected to act in accordance with law. She not only
abdicated her responsibilities and obligations in conducting a fair and
transparent admission to the two remaining seats but, in fact, colluded with
Dr.Adile, Director of the Health Services in ensuring manipulation of the
process leading to admission of his daughter and deprived more meritorious
students of those seats. In her entire affidavit or in the letter, she has not
averred that any other candidate was informed or contacted on telephone in the
entire State, which means that all other meritorious and eligible candidates
were not even informed of availability of the two seats. It was her
responsibility to ensure that the vacancy
of such seats
be duly intimated to the eligible
candidates, which was not done,
primarily with the intention to
favour the two appellants who have been given admission in a most arbitrary manner. It is not
even disputed before the Court that candidates, who were much higher in the order of
merit than the two to whom seats were awarded, have not got admission to the
medical course. It is also surprising that within the working
hours of the
office on 30th September, 2006,
the entire commotion
of awarding seats
to the two candidates
was completed. The scrutinizing
of the applications and documentation, the holding of the interview and
even deposit of fees by the appellants was completed on that very day. All this could not
have happened but for complete collusion between the Director, the Dean and the
Selection Committee. It is
also not clear as to why the vacancy position was informed by the Dean to the
Director on 30th September, 2006 though the second counseling had been held between 22nd and
23rd August, 2006. It was expected
of her to inform the vacancy position well in time. Intentionally withholding
of this information does not speak well of the functioning of the
Committee. [Para 26]
The members of the Selection Committee were to discharge
the very onerous duty of ensuring that all the eligible candidates had
been informed of the vacancy position and they were also expected
to scrutinise the certificates of eligible candidates and
recommend admission strictly
in order of merit. They have not
even averred in their affidavit that vacancy position was in the knowledge to
the eligible persons. It is not only improbable but impossible to believe that in the entire
State and even from the same town, no candidate
would have come
to take admission
to the medical courses, had they
been intimated of the
vacancy position. [Para 27]
Selection Committee’s Failure to discharge its duties:
The
Committee has not only failed to discharge its onerous duty but has even kept
all principles of fair selection aside and ensured selection of the daughter of
the Director. In contradistinction to D.P. Gupta’s case (supra), none of these persons were obliged to carry out the
directions of the Director to give admission to these two candidates. In fact, there was no
such direction. These persons were not
subordinate to the Director or even the Dean while performing the duties for
filling up the two vacancies as members
of the Selection Committee. They cannot take
shelter of bona fide exercise of power in obeying orders of the superior.
In addition to this and for the reasons recorded in
the earlier part of the judgment, we have no
hesitation in holding
that all these
four persons have also violated the orders of the Court
and have circumvented the process of selection and
defeated the very object
of the directions issued by this Court. They have lowered the dignity and authority
of the Court and, thus, are liable to be punished for violating the orders of
this Court. Consequently, they are also
punished and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and copy of this order shall
be placed on their personal file. [Para 28]
Now, we will deal with the case of Mr.Keshav Desiraju, Special Secretary in the Ministry
of Health and
Family Welfare and of Jagdish Prasad, Director General, Health
Services, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India.
Mr. Keshav Desiraju
has stated in his affidavit
that he has been very serious in
maintaining the time
Schedule for giving
permission to new
medical colleges taking
admissions for MBBS/BDS
courses under Section 10(a) of the Medical Council of
India Act, 1956 by 15th July of every
year. The permission was stated to be
granted to
the said college on 15th July, 2006 for the academic year 2006-2007. [Para 29]
It is further stated that the State of Chhattisgarh
has contributed only three seats of MBBS at JLN Medical College, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh and no seat was contributed in the Government Medical College
NMDS Jagdalpur towards Central Pool quota. Thus, the question of
allotting of seat from the central pool quota did not arise. He further affirms that they shall strictly adhere to the schedule term
provided under the
judgment of the Court. [Para 29]
Dr.Jagdish Prasad in
his affidavit has
also stated that
the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur was given approval on 15th
July, 2006 as per Rules for the academic
year 2006-07. Admission to 15% quota was
completed by 8th August, 2006 and the unfilled seats were returned to the
respective State Governments. According to this Affidavit, Kumari Akanksha and
Kumari Priya Gupta did not belong to All India quota. The Jagdalpur college was granted permission for
starting the academic
procedure for academic year 2006-07
by the Government of Chhattisgarh
on 14th August, 2006.
The fake admission of the two candidates came to
be known to the
Department when an application under the Right to Information Act was filed by
one Dr.Anil Khakharia in
September, 2009 upon
which the action
was taken. The letter dated 8th
August, 2006 issued by the Director General’s office was fake. The admission
was cancelled vide letter dated19th September, 2010. It is further
averred that the Directorate strictly adheres to the schedule provided. I t is
also stated that no deviation has been made from the prescribed procedure, time
schedule approved by the Supreme Court. [Para 30]
From these two affidavits, it
is in fact
clear that both
these contemnors are not
directly responsible for
violating any order
or direction of the Court.
However, they are expected to exercise proper control and supervision
over grant of recommendation, permission to give admission in the colleges and
the admission process. The
Director General of Health
Services, Union of
India is responsible
for maintaining transparency in
the process of admission to
the medical colleges. Two things are clear that
they ought to have checked that the
State could not have permitted the college to grant
admission to the students on or
after August 14, 2006 as 15th of July,
2006 was the
last date for
grant of recognition and permission
to run the medical college.
Secondly, when the complaint was received,
the Ministry as
well as the
Directorate was expected to
act with greater
expeditiousness and ought
not to have permitted the
wrongly granted admissions to
continue. In fact, the Government or the Directorate both took no action
against the institute, even till date. There
is apparent lack
of proper supervision and enforcement of the directions
issued by this Court on the
part of these contemnors. [Para 31]
32. Having considered the entire spectrum of the
matter, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by
issuing a warning to both these contemnors and not to punish them with fine or
imprisonment.
They should be more careful in discharge of their
functions and duties in accordance with the judgment of this Court and we further direct
them to ensure circulation of
this judgment as
well as the
judgment of Priya Gupta’s case to all
the Directors, Health Services
of the respective States, Deans of the
Universities holding the
selection/examination or admission process for MBBS/BDS courses as well
as to the Dean of
all the colleges.
The fine should be deposited within four weeks from
today. In the event of default, they shall be
liable to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The notice of contempt against them is
discharged, however, subject to the observations aforemade.
SC observed that “From these two
affidavits, it is in fact
clear that both
these contemnors are not directly responsible for violating any
order or direction of the
Court. However, they are expected to
exercise proper control and supervision over grant of recommendation,
permission to give admission in the colleges and the admission process. The Director General of
Health Services, Union
of India is
responsible for maintaining transparency in the process
of admission to
the medical colleges. Two things are clear that
they ought to have checked that the
State could not have permitted the college to grant
admission to the students on or
after August 14, 2006 as 15th of July,
2006 was the
last date for
grant of recognition and
permission to run the medical college.
Secondly, when the complaint was received,
the Ministry as
well as the
Directorate was expected to
act with greater
expeditiousness and ought
not to have permitted the
wrongly granted admissions
to continue. In fact, the
Government or the Directorate both took no action against the institute,
even till date. There
is apparent lack
of proper supervision
and enforcement of the directions issued by this Court on the part
of these contemnors.” [Para 31]
SC further directed that “Having
considered the entire spectrum of the matter, we are of the considered view
that the ends of justice would be met by issuing a warning to both these
contemnors and not to punish them with fine or imprisonment. They should be
more careful in discharge of their functions and duties in accordance with the
judgment of this Court and we further
direct them to ensure circulation of this judgment
as well as
the judgment of
Priya Gupta’s case to all the
Directors, Health Services
of the respective States, Deans of the
Universities holding the
selection/examination or
admission process for MBBS/BDS courses as well as to the Dean
of all the colleges. [Para 32]
Four Doctors Punished
by SC:
In result of the above discussion,
contemnor Dr.S.L. Adile, Amrita
Banerjee, Dr.Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr.P.D. Agrawal and Mr.
Padmakar Sasane are hereby punished and awarded the sentence of fine
of Rs.2,000/- each.
The fine should be deposited
within four weeks from today. In the event of default, they shall be liable to
undergo civil imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The notice of contempt
against them is discharged, however, subject to the observations aforemade.
[Para 33]
[Source: Swatanter Kumar, J. A.K.
Patnaik, J. Priya Gupta & Anr. vs. Addl.
Secy. Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare & Ors., Suo Motu Contempt Petition Nos. 195-196 of 2012 in Civil
Appeal Nos. 4318 and 4319 of 2012, DECIDED ON December 13, 2012]
References
1.
Asha Sharma v. Pt B.D. Sharma University of Health
Sciences [(2012) 7 SCC 389]
2.
Priya Gupta, State of Bihar vs. Sanjay Kumar Sinha,
3.
Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh,
4.
GSF Medical and
Paramedical Assn. vs. Assn. of Self Financing
Technical Institutes
5.
Christian Medical College v. State of Punjab.
6. State
of M.P. vs. Gopal D. Tirthani,
7. State
of Punjab vs. Dayanand Medical College
& Hospital,
8. Bharati
Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra,
9. Chowdhury
Navin Hemabhai vs. State of Gujarat
10. Harish
Verma vs. Ajay Srivastava
11.
D.P. Gupta v. Parsuram Tiwari [(2004) 13 SCC 746]
Visit for complete judgment:
