Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by
Dr.Anil Kumar Singh from Allahabad High Court has been dismissed on 20th
January 2014 by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of
Hon’ble Justice, Sunil Ambwani, and
Justice Dinesh Gupta, on the ground of Alternate Remedy not used by the
petitioner before Central Govt. It is important to mention that case was listed
for 13 times before dismissal of the case.
Background of the Case:
The
Medical Council of India was superseded in the year 2010 by Indian Medical
Council (Amendment) Act 2010 with provisions for Constitution of the Board of
Governors for one year. Their term was extended by the Ordinances promulgated
in the year 2011 and in the year 2012 for one year each. The least of these
Ordinances namely the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance 2013, could
not be enacted into Act, in as much as the Bill for re-enactment was referred
to the Standing Committee of the Parliament and that the Bill could not be
debated and discussed as the Parliament Session was adjourned sine die.
The last of the Ordinance of the year 2013, provided for
reconstitution of the council within one hundred and eighty days i.e. by 15th
November 2013. [Para 2]
Partially Constituted MCI, Elected Chairman and Other
Office Bearers:
In
the meantime the elections and nominations to constitute the Medical Council of
India were held in accordance with Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act
1956. The Medical Council of India was constituted with the elected and
nominated members electing the Chairman and other office bearers on 5.11.2013. [Para 3]
Ground for PIL and the Prayer: No homework done in
preparing & arguing the case
The
prayer made in the writ petition is based on an
inadvertently wrong reference to the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act
2010, as the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 in the
letter of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India dated 14.6.2013.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner has unnecessarily without
any justicifiable reason tried to built his entire arguments on such incorrect
reference; in the letter dated 14.6.2013. [Para 4]
Sri
R.B Singhal, has made a statement clarifying that the reference in the letter is of the
Ordinance of 2013, as no Act was enacted in the year 2013. [Para 5]
Profile of Petitioner & Allegations:
The
petitioner Dr.Anil Kumar Singh who claims to be a doctor practicing at
Allahabad concerned deeply with elections of the Medical Council of India.
He
alleges that a fraud has been played as the Act to constitute a truncated
council with representatives of six states only out of 28 states and Union
Territories and that the elections of the Chairman and other office bearers was
held from a partially constituted council denying the right to election to the
members on the rolls of Medical Council of India from Uttar Pradesh and other
States. [Para 6]
Challenge to the MCI Office Bearers Elections:
The
petitioner has also challenged the election by an amendment application dated
11.11.2013 which has been allowed and the second amendment application which is
pending. According to the petitioner the representatives of State of U.P. was
not elected and that only a few members, from six States have illegally elected
as the office bearers of the Medical Council of India. [Para 7]
Complaint to Central Govt. before approaching the Court:
We
find that sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
provides that where any dispute arises regarding any election to council it
shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final.
[Para 8]
The
petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the election on all the ground
which may be available to him before the Central Government. [Para 9]
Alternate Remedy by complaining to Central Govt.:
Division
Bench of Allahabad clarified that we do not find any substance in the arguments
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute relating to
elections to the council will not include dispute relating to elections of
Chairman and other office bearers of the council in as much as the elections to
Medical Council of India include both the elections of the members of the
Medical Council of India and the elections of the office bearers of the Medical
Council of India. [Para 10]
Alternative remedy by complaining to Central Government
should be utilised before approaching the Court:
The Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy.
No Public Interest shown:
Before
parting with the case, Division Bench observed that this matter could not have
been entertained as public interest litigation as no public interest is likely
to be served in allowing any of the prayers or the awarded prayers.
Is this given a Life
to Illegally Reconstituted MCI?
Reference:
1. Sunil Ambwani, J., Dinesh
Gupta, J. Dr.Anil Kumar Singh vs. Union of India,
Thru Secy. and 2 Others, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.55024 of 2013, Allahbad
High Court (Main Bench, Allahabad) Order
Date: 20.1.2014.
Author:
Dr Mukesh Yadav
B.Sc., M.B.B.S., M.D., M.B.A. (HCA), LL.B., PGDHR
Editor, Journal
of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine
Professor and Head of Department,
Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology
School of Medical Sciences & Research, Sharda University
Off.
Add.: Plot No. 32, 34, Knowledge Park 3, Greater Noida
Gautam
Budha Nagar, NCR, Delhi, pin: 201306
Mobile: +91-8527063514
Email: drmukesh65@yahoo.co.in
Web address: http://www.qme.co.in
Web address: http://www.qme.co.in
