Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Ramineni Venugopal Somaiah and Dr. Prabhudas Solanki, both orthopedic surgeons, challenged an order of the Maharashtra Medical Council (respondent no.1) suspending their registration for five years from 20th April 2013, or till the final decision of a criminal case against them under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), whichever was earlier. The complaint was filed by respondent no.2, a Medical Health Officer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, alleging contravention of the Act and Rules. The impugned order was passed under Section 23(2) of the Act. The petitioners sought to set aside the suspension and prayed for a stay pending the criminal case before the Metropolitan Magistrate and their review application before the Medical Council. The core legal issue was whether Section 23(2) mandates suspension of registration upon framing of charges by a court. The court examined the language of Section 23(2), which states that the name of the registered medical practitioner 'shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council concerned for taking necessary action including suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by the Court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period of five years for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent offence.' The petitioners argued that the word 'including' gives the Council discretion to choose among various actions, and suspension is not mandatory. However, the court held that the word 'shall' makes the reporting mandatory, and the phrase 'including suspension' indicates that suspension is one of the necessary actions to be taken. The court reasoned that the purpose of the Act is to prohibit sex selection and pre-natal sex determination, and suspension upon framing of charges is intended to prevent the practitioner from continuing practice while facing serious charges. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the suspension order. The decision primarily favors the prosecution/state.
Headnote
A) Medical Law - Suspension of Registration - Mandatory Suspension - Section 23(2) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - The court considered whether the State Medical Council has discretion to not suspend registration upon framing of charges - Held that the word 'shall' in Section 23(2) makes suspension mandatory upon framing of charges, and the phrase 'including suspension' does not confer discretion but indicates that suspension is one of the necessary actions to be taken - The suspension operates till the criminal case is disposed of, and upon conviction, removal for five years for first offence (Paras 3-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 23(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 makes it mandatory for the State Medical Council to suspend the registration of a registered medical practitioner upon framing of charges by a court under the said Act.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the suspension order passed by the Maharashtra Medical Council under Section 23(2) of the PCPNDT Act.
Law Points
- Mandatory suspension of registration upon framing of charges under Section 23(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act
- 1994
- No discretion for State Medical Council
- Suspension till disposal of criminal case
- Removal on conviction for five years for first offence
