Court Emphasizes Need for Fair Hearing and Reasoned Orders in Withdrawal of Medical Registration Under Assam Medical Council Act
In a significant judgment delivered on August 28, 2026, the Gauhati High Court set aside the order of the Assam Medical Council that had withdrawn the registration of Dr. Siddhartha Buragohain, an Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, for six months following allegations of professional misconduct linked to the death of a patient under his care. The Court held that the Ethical Committee of the Assam Medical Council failed to follow the principles of natural justice and did not provide a fair and reasoned adjudication before suspending the doctor's medical registration.
Dr. Buragohain, who had been practicing since 1996 and serving as an Assistant Professor at Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, faced the withdrawal of his registration by the Ethical Committee under Section 32(D) of the Assam Medical Council Act, 1999. The order was issued in 2018 after the death of Junali Das, a patient admitted with intrauterine fetal death, who later developed complications and died post caesarean section performed by another doctor.
The Court noted that the withdrawal of medical registration is a quasi-judicial function with serious civil and professional consequences. It emphasized that such a decision must be preceded by a fair procedure, which includes the disclosure of specific allegations, providing the foundational material, and offering an effective opportunity for the practitioner to defend himself. In Dr. Buragohain's case, the Court found that the notice issued to him did not disclose the precise nature of allegations or the material relied upon by the Ethical Committee. Furthermore, the complaints forming the basis of the enquiry were neither furnished to the doctor nor available in the records.
Importantly, the enquiry committee's own report acknowledged that the patient was managed by multiple doctors after Dr. Buragohain's duty period had ended and that the duty roster system at the hospital was defective. Despite this, the Ethical Committee held Dr. Buragohain responsible for the entire period of the patient's stay without adequately explaining the basis for attributing continuing responsibility to him. The Court criticized the impugned order for being a non-speaking order that failed to independently consider the available material or the doctor's defence.
The Court also observed that communications from the State Government requesting cancellation of the doctor's registration, while not final orders, had an influence on the process and underscored the need for the Ethical Committee to demonstrate an independent application of mind, which it failed to do.
Rejecting the State's contention that the doctor had been given adequate opportunity to defend himself, the Court stressed that mere participation in proceedings is insufficient unless the accused is made aware of the specific allegations and evidence against him. The judgment reiterates that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness cannot be compromised even in cases involving serious allegations like medical negligence.
Ultimately, the Gauhati High Court quashed the six-month suspension order and remanded the matter back to the competent authority. The Court directed that if proceedings are to be initiated afresh, the doctor must be furnished with specific charges and material, be given a meaningful opportunity to defend himself, and only thereafter should a reasoned and speaking order be passed.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness and due process in disciplinary actions against medical practitioners, balancing the need for accountability with protection of professional rights.
Bottom Line:
The withdrawal of a medical practitioner's registration, which directly affects their ability to practice medicine and their livelihood, must be preceded by a fair and lawful exercise of quasi-judicial power, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Statutory provision(s):
Assam Medical Council Act, 1999 - Sections 17, 23, 32(D); Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Siddhartha Buragohain v. State of Assam, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2969018
