As per case facts, Dr. Narain, a pediatrician, was appointed at one medical college after retiring from another. He appeared as faculty for an inspection at the first college. He ...
2026 INSC 453 Page 1 of 16
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 22707 OF 2023]
DR. NIGAM PRAKASH NARAIN … APPELLANT
VS.
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
THE APPEAL
2. The present appeal stems from a judgment and order dated 24
th
August 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna
1
in L.P.A.
No. 1608 of 2017, whereby the Division Bench, in exercise of its intra-
1
High Court
Page 2 of 16
court appellate jurisdiction, allowed the appeal preferred by the
Medical Council of India
2
(since substituted by the National Medical
Commission
3
) and set aside the judgment and order dated 20
th
September 2017 passed by the Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13547 of
2016, thereby restoring the order of penalty dated 21
st
July 2016
passed by the Ethics Committee of the MCI
4
, which had directed
removal of the name of Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain
5
from the Indian
Medical Register for a period of three months. The challenge to such
judgment and order is at the instance of Dr. Narain.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Facts giving rise to the lis are as follows:
3.1. Dr. Narain is a paediatrician. He holds a Ph.D. in Paediatrics and
M.R.C.P. from the Royal College of Physicians, London, and has been
registered as a medical practitioner with the Bihar Council of Medical
Registration since the year 1976. He served as a faculty member in
the Department of Paediatrics, Patna Medical College, Patna
6
since
1985, attaining the position of Professor and Head of the Department
of Paediatrics from which he superannuated on 30
th
September 2014.
3.2. Post his retirement from the PMC, Dr. Narain was appointed as
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, at Shridev Suman Subharti
2
MCI
3
NMC
4
Ethics Committee
5
Dr. Narain
6
PMC
Page 3 of 16
Medical College & Hospital, Dehradun
7
on 3
rd
January 2015
8
. Pursuant
to this appointment, on 22
nd
January 2015, an MCI inspection was
conducted at the SSSMC, wherein Dr. Narain appeared as faculty of
the said institution before the Inspecting Team of the MCI.
3.3. In the meanwhile, Dr. Narain received an offer to rejoin the PMC
as Professor on a non-cadre post of Professor on contractual basis.
Accordingly, Dr. Narain submitted his resignation to the SSSMC vide
letter dated 6
th
April 2015 and stood formally relieved from service
vide relieving certificate dated 7
th
April 2015
9
. On the very same date,
i.e., 6
th
April 2015, the Bihar Government, Health Department, issued
a notification for the contractual appointment of Dr. Narain at the PMC.
Dr. Narain joined the PMC on contractual basis on 10
th
April 2015, in
pursuance of the office order of even date issued by the Principal, PMC.
3.4. Prior to the seed of the lis, i.e., the surprise inspection scheduled
to be conducted by the MCI at the PMC on 5
th
May 2015, Dr. Narain
had, on 21
st
April 2015, signed a Declaration Form (which was co -
signed by the Head of the Department, Paediatrics, and the Principal
of the PMC on 27
th
April 2015) and left the same with the Principal for
safekeeping, to be produced before the Assessors of the MCI at the
time of the surprise inspection. It is the admitted position that the said
Declaration Form did not contain any mention of Dr. Narain’s short
stint at the SSSMC during the same academic year.
7
SSSMC
8
vide appointment letter bearing Ref. No. JNSCT/2015/01/1596
9
Bearing Ref. No. JNSCT/2014/04/310
Page 4 of 16
3.5. On 5
th
May 2015, the MCI conducted a surprise inspection at the
PMC. Dr. Narain, however, was not present in the country on the date
of the inspection. He had applied for and granted Ex-India leave for six
days from 4
th
May 2015 to 9
th
May 2015, to attend the 48
th
Annual
Meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology,
Haematology and Nutrition
10
held at Amsterdam, Netherlands. Dr.
Narain left India on 4
th
May 2015 and arrived in Amsterdam on 5
th
May
2015, whereafter he returned to India on 10
th
May 2015. In the
absence of Dr. Narain, the lis seed, i.e., alleged false/incomplete
Declaration Form (kept in readiness with the Principal, PMC) was
produced before the Assessors of the MCI during the inspection.
3.6. The MCI thereafter constituted a Sub-Committee to investigate
the matter of alleged fake faculty declaration forms for the academic
year 2015-16, concerning doctors whose names appeared in more
than one medical college. On 9
th
December 2015, the MCI issued a
show cause notice
11
to Dr. Narain, under the provisions of the Indian
Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics)
Regulations, 2002
12
wherein the Sub-Committee’s observation was
communicated that “Dr. Narain had appeared for inspection in SSSMC
on 22
nd
January 2015 and thereafter, in the same academic year, had
appeared for inspection in PMC on 5
th
May 2015, without disclosing the
fact of his appearance in the first inspection”.
10
ESPGHAN
11
Bearing No. MCI-211(2)(91)(18)(Complaint)/2015-Ethics/154747
12
2002 Regulations
Page 5 of 16
3.7. Dr. Narain submitted a detailed reply by his letter dated 18
th
December 2015, accompanied by a sworn affidavit dated 19
th
December 2015. He denied that he had signed any declaration form in
front of the Assessors on the day of inspection at the PMC and asserted
that since MCI inspections are always surprise inspections, the
declaration forms are customarily prepared well in advance by the
institution and kept ready for production. He placed on record his
passport and visa documents establishing his presence in Amsterdam
on 5
th
May 2015. He also acknowledged that he had appeared before
the MCI Inspection Team at the SSSMC on 22
nd
January 2015 as a
faculty member of that institution. Separately, the Principal, PMC, also
sent a representative, namely Shri S. N. Sharma, who was the Head
of Department of Physiology, to the meeting before the Ethics
Committee, submitting a clarification and stating that Dr. Narain did
not appear in the inspection held on 5
th
May 2015 as he was on Ex-
India leave from 4
th
May 2015 to 9
th
May 2015 to participate in
ESPGHAN at Amsterdam. It was also submitted that the matter was fit
to be dropped from consideration under Clause 8.5
13
of the 2002
Regulations.
3.8. The Ethics Committee, at its meetings held on 22
nd
and 23
rd
December 2015, concluded the aforesaid matter and found that Dr.
Narain was not guilty of appearing at MCI inspections in two medical
13
8.5 During the pendency of the complaint the appropriate Council may restrain
the physician from performing the procedure or practice which is under scrutiny.
Page 6 of 16
colleges in the same academic year, inasmuch as he was abroad
attending a conference when the PMC was inspected on 5
th
May 2015.
3.9. The decision of the Ethics Committee was placed before the
Executive Committee
14
of MCI at its meeting held on 27
th
February
2016 for approval. The Executive Committee, instead of approving the
aforesaid conclusion, decided to refer the matter back to the Ethics
Committee with advice to verify whether Dr. Narain had disclosed the
fact of his appearance at the SSSMC assessment in his declaration
form submitted for the PMC assessment held on 5
th
May 2015. It is
submitted by Dr. Narain that no notice of this development was given
to him.
3.10. In light of the observations of the Executive Committee, the
Ethics Committee purportedly perused the file and opined that the fact
of Dr. Narain’s appearance at the SSSMC on 22
nd
January 2015 as
Professor (Paediatrics) in the MCI assessment during the same
academic year was not disclosed in the Declaration Form submitted for
the PMC assessment on 5
th
May 2015. The Ethics Committee ,
therefore, opined that Dr. Narain had thereby committed an act of
serious misconduct as a doctor and as a faculty member of a medical
college, and decided that his name be removed from the Indian
Medical Register for a period of three months from the date of
notification. The recommendation of the Ethics Committee was
14
Executive Committee
Page 7 of 16
approved by the Executive Committee of MCI at its meeting held on
15
th
June 2016. It is categorically submitted by Dr. Narain that no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to him in the course of these
developments.
3.11. Pursuant to the aforesaid, MCI issued order dated 21
st
July
2016
15
directing that the name of Dr. Narain be removed from the
Indian Medical Register for a period of three months from the date of
notification.
3.12. Aggrieved thereby, Dr. Narain preferred a writ petition
16
before
the High Court, praying for quashing of the MCI order dated 21
st
July
2016 and for a direction restraining Respondent No. 2 (the Registrar,
Bihar Council of Medical Registration) from acting in pursuance of the
said order.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
4. The Single Judge, by the judgment and order dated 20
th
September
2017, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty dated
21
st
July 2016. The Single Judge found, inter alia, that: (i) the
resignation of Dr. Narain from the SSSMC and its acceptance was not
disputed by the Ethics Committee or the MCI; (ii) Dr. Narain accepted
the assignment at the PMC on contract only after resigning from the
SSSMC, and therefore ceased to be a Faculty at the SSSMC the day
15
Bearing No. MCI-211(2)(91)(18)(Complaint)/2015-Ethics/121346
16
C.W.J.C. No. 13547 of 2016
Page 8 of 16
his resignation was accepted, thus, he had no mens rea to be faculty
at two medical colleges simultaneously, as he gave up his position at
the SSSMC before accepting the offer at the PMC; (iii) the MCI and the
Ethics Committee did not objectively examine this fact and instead
took a very strict and technical view of the alleged aberration or
omission, despite Dr. Narain having given up his position prior to
assuming responsibility at the PMC; and (iv) while not being against
the object and purpose of the Regulation, the decision to strike down
the name of Dr. Narain from the Register of the Indian Medical
Practitioner for three months was, in the facts of the present case, an
erroneous decision.
5. The aforesaid judgment and order was carried in appeal
17
by the MCI
before the Division Bench of the High Court. Notably, during the
pendency of the said appeal, vide order dated 17
th
May 2023 passed
in I.A. No. 3/23, the NMC was substituted by in place of the MCI.
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
6. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench allowed the
intra-court appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Single
Judge. While allowing the appeal:
6.1. The Division Bench upheld the power and duty of the MCI to
conduct surprise inspections with a view to ensuring that standards of
17
L.P.A. No. 1608 of 2017.
Page 9 of 16
medical education are maintained and the minimum requirements as
per the MCI guidelines are facilitated in every medical college.
6.2. On the question of the lis seed, i.e., alleged false/incomplete
declaration, the Division Bench found that the signatures on both the
Declaration Forms (i.e., the one submitted for the SSSMC inspection
on 22
nd
January 2015, and the one submitted for the PMC inspection
on 5
th
May 2015) tallied. It held that the Declaration Form for the PMC
was dated 21
st
April 2015 and was signed by Dr. Narain in the presence
of the Head of the Department and the Principal of the PMC; the
signature of the HOD was co-dated 27
th
April 2015, far before the date
of inspection. It held that Dr. Narain could not disown the said
declaration merely on account of his absence from the country on the
date of the inspection.
6.3. The Division Bench held that the declaration submitted for the
PMC assessment did not disclose Dr. Narain’s prior service with the
SSSMC during the same academic year. In the academic year 2014-
15, Dr. Narain had been first with the PMC, then with the SSSMC, and
later again with the PMC on contract, which raises the issue of whether
Dr. Narain had wrongly facilitated the SSSMC to enable approval from
the MCI. It was of the view that such omission could not be condoned
as a mere bona fide inadvertence, given the significance of such
declarations to the process of approval by the apex regulatory body.
Page 10 of 16
6.4. On the question of limitation, the Division Bench disagreed with
the Single Judge’s finding and held that Regulation 8.4
18
of the 2002
Regulations, which provides that decision on a complaint against a
delinquent physician shall be taken within a time limit of six months,
is only a caution to ensure expeditious disposal and does not constitute
a bar that would frustrate an otherwise valid complaint against a
medical practitioner. The Division Bench read Regulations 8.4 and
8.7
19
conjunctively to arrive at this conclusion.
6.5. The Division Bench found no violation of principles of natural
justice, holding that the absence of Dr. Narain on the date of inspection
was not a significant circumstance since what assumed relevance was
the production of a declaration made and signed by Dr. Narain himself.
6.6. Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order
of the Single Judge and restored the order of the Ethics Committee. It
further directed that any notification required to be issued pursuant to
the order of penalty shall be issued within three weeks from the date
18
8.4 Decision on complaint against delinquent physician shall be taken within a
time limit of 6 months.
19
8.7 Where either on a request or otherwise the Medical Council of India is
informed that any complaint against a delinquent physician has not been decided
by a State Medical Council within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of complaint by it and further the MCI has reason to believe that there is no
justified reason for not deciding the complaint within the said prescribed period,
the Medical Council of India may-
(i) Impress upon the concerned State Medical council to conclude and decide the
complaint within a time bound schedule;
(ii) May decide to withdraw the said complaint pending with the concerned State
Medical Council straightaway or after the expiry of the period which had been
stipulated by the MCI in accordance with para(i) above, to itself and refer the
same to the Ethical Committee of the Council for its expeditious disposal in a
period of not more than six months from the receipt of the complaint in the office
of the Medical Council of India.
Page 11 of 16
of receipt of the certified copy of its judgment, while also observing
that the penalty shall operate only for the period for which it was
imposed.
ISSUES INVOLVED
7. In view of the aforesaid factual narrative, the following limited issue
falls for our determination:
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in
interfering with the judgment of the Single Judge and in restoring the
order of the Ethics Committee?
ANALYSIS
8. What has not been disputed are the core facts. The fact that after his
superannuation from the PMC, Dr. Narain was appointed as a Professor
with the SSSMC, Dehradun on 3
rd
January 2015; he was formally
relieved from service under the SSSMC on 7
th
April 2015; on 6
th
April
2015 he was appointed as Sr. Professor with the PMC; that he signed
the Declaration Form for the PMC on 21
st
April 2015; that the surprise
inspection was conducted on 5
th
May 2015; that Dr. Narain was not in
India on the date of inspection and was participating in ESPGHAN at
Amsterdam; that on 9
th
December 2015 he was issued a notice with
respect to fake faculty de claration form submitted during the
inspection conducted at PMC on 5
th
May 2015; Dr. Narain replied to
the letter with a sworn affidavit on 18
th
December 2015; and that on
21
st
July 2016, the MCI issued the letter accepting the
Page 12 of 16
recommendation of Ethics Committee to remove the name of Dr.
Narain from the Indian Medical Register for a period of three months.
9. The letter of Executive Committee which was impugned before the
High Court, reads thus:
Whereas, the Ethics Committee considered the above matter at
its meeting held on 18 April, 2016. The operative part of the
decision reproduced as under:
“The Ethics Committee further considered the matter
and noted that the Ethics Committee at its meeting held
on 22
nd
& 23
rd
December, 2015, concluded the above
matter. The above decision of the Ethics Committee
after confirmation was placed before the Executive
Committee at its meeting held on 27
th
February, 2016,
for approval. While perusing the above minutes, the
Executive Committee observed as under:-
“The Committee decided to refer back with an
advice to verify whether Dr. N P Narain had
disclosed the fact of his appearance at Subharti,
Dehradun assessment into his declaration form
submitted for Patna medical college for the
assessment held on 5.5.2015 and resubmit the
matter.”
In light of the observations of the Executive Committee,
the Ethics Committee perused the file again and noted
that Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain was absent on the day of
assessment at Patna Medical College and went to abroad
for a Conference.
Moreover, Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain has not disclosed
the fact of his appearance in the first medical college at
Shridev Suman Subharti Medical, Dehradun,
Uttarakhand on 22.01.2015 as Professor (Pediatrics), in
MCI assessment during the same academic year.
The Ethics Committee further noted that by withholding
information from MCI, regarding in two medical colleges
within the same academic year by Dr. Nigam Prakash
Narain has done an act of serious misconduct as a doctor
and faculty member of a medical colle ge. In view of
above, the Ethics Committee decided that the name of
Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain, be removed from the Indian
Medical Register for a period of 3 (Three) months from
the date of notification.”
Page 13 of 16
The above recommendation of the Ethics Committee was
approved by the Executive Committee of the Council at its
meeting held on 15.06.2016.
10. Initially, charge framed in the show cause notice required Dr. Narain
to explain his conduct with respect to fake faculty declaration forms
where names of doctors appeared in more than one medical college.
It was his defence—uncontroverted by the respondents—that when the
inspection came to be conducted at the PMC on 5
th
May 2015, he was
not in India.
11. Dr. Narain, in his reply, which also enclosed a sworn affidavit by him,
exhibited that neither of the declaration forms signed by him were
fake. He admitted his signatures and contended that on the date of
inspection at the PMC, he was participating in ESPGHAN at Amsterdam.
Having accepted the reply, the Executive Committee referred the
matter back to the Ethics Committee, which observed that Dr. Narain
had not disclosed his appearance as a faculty with the SSSMC in the
declaration form submitted during the inspection carried for the PMC—
a charge that did not form a part of the show cause notice dated 9
th
December 2015.
12. Once the charge originally framed against Dr. Narain was successfully
defended by him, the Ethics Committee (on being prodded by the
Executive Committee) proceeded to hold Dr. Narain guilty of an act of
omission, which was at variance with the charge. This was without
informing him of the same and without calling for his explanation.
There has, indeed, been a breach of principles of natural justice. A
Page 14 of 16
coordinate bench of this Court in Ravi Oraon v. State of
Jharkhand
20
has held that once a delinquent employee ha d
successfully defended a charge, the disciplinary authority, in absence
of a fresh show cause notice, cannot punish the delinquent employee
on a completely different charge which was not framed. This would be
a denial of fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and in violation
of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the Executive Committee
could not have imposed the punishment without issuing a fresh show
cause notice and/or without granting Dr. Narain a fair and reasonable
opportunity to respond to the new/alternative charge under
consideration. We quite appreciate that the Executive Committee’s
decision, to that extent, does suffer from a serious flaw.
13. However, despite such flaw, sight cannot be lost of the fact that Dr.
Narain has failed to answer, with any degree of conviction, why and
how was the mis-declaration
21
made, which was alleged in the
Executive Committee’s order dated 21
st
July 2016. Failure to explain
such a brazen mis-declaration, ipso facto, would afford a ground to
view such mis-declaration as misconduct. Such mis-declaration on the
part of Dr. Narain could not have been condoned by the Executive
Committee.
14. What is of relevance now is the quantum of punishment.
20
2025 SCC Online SC 2192
21
made on 21
st
April 2015, relevant part of which reads: 2. I have not presented
myself to any other Institution as a faculty in the current academic year for the
purpose of MCI assessment.
Page 15 of 16
15. At this juncture, we might also hasten to note that during pendency of
the writ petition before the Single Judge, the operation of the decision
of the Executive Committee was stayed. After the order of Single Judge
in Dr. Narain’s favour, the Division Bench did not stay the operation of
the Single Judge’s order or direct enforcement of the Executive
Committee’s decision. After the Division Bench’s decision adverse to
him, Dr. Narain approached this Court by way of the present petition.
On 13
th
October, 2023 a Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing
notice in the petition, stayed the operation of the impugned order.
16. The decision of the Executive Committee dates back to 21
st
July 2016.
Almost a decade has passed since then. Dr. Narain is now 76 years of
age, having had the sword of Damocles hanging over his head since
the last ten years. While it is true that there has been a lapse on his
part by mis-declaration in the Declaration Form—one which he now
fairly admits—in the larger scheme of things, it may not be in the
interest of justice to uphold the penalty imposed by the Executive
Committee. The NMC, as is its professional obligation, is duty bound
to ensure that the professional repute of doctors is maintained at its
highest level within its governance framework. The order we propose
to pass is not to fault the process undertaken by the MCI but to ensure
complete justice between the parties. Accordingly, in exercise of our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we request the
NMC to reduce the punishment imposed by the Executive Committee
from removal of Dr. Narain’s name from the Indian Medical Register
Page 16 of 16
for 3 months to issuance of a censure/ warning. An order to that effect
may be issued by the NMC to Dr. Narain.
17. Thus, the civil appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Interim orders,
if any, stand vacated.
………………………………….J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
………………………………….J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA )
NEW DELHI;
MAY 06, 2026.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....