The Madhya Pradesh High Court has raised critical questions about the ₹30 lakh bond imposed on medical graduates, requiring them to serve in rural areas or pay the penalty for non-compliance. In an interim order, the court directed the authorities to return the petitioner’s original documents, including a No Objection Certificate (NOC), by November 18, 2024. The case, Dr. Abhishek Masih vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 35530 of 2024), has sparked debates on the balance between public service obligations and individual rights.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dr. Abhishek Masih, a medical graduate, filed the writ petition challenging the state government’s policy of imposing a ₹30 lakh bond. The bond mandates medical graduates to serve in rural healthcare facilities for a specific duration or face financial penalties. The petitioner argued that this bond, along with the retention of his original documents, placed an undue burden on his career progression and professional mobility.
Represented by Advocate Shri Aditya Sanghi, Dr. Masih alleged that withholding documents such as his degree and NOC violated his fundamental rights and lacked legal justification. The case also highlighted concerns about whether such a policy aligned with constitutional principles of equality and freedom of profession.
The state government, represented by Advocate Shri Bhuwan Gautam, justified the bond as a measure to address rural healthcare deficiencies.
Legal Issues Raised
1. Constitutionality of the ₹30 Lakh Bond:
– Whether the bond imposed by the state government disproportionately infringes on medical students’ constitutional rights under Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 19 (freedom to choose a profession).
2. Retention of Documents:
– The legality of withholding original documents as a coercive mechanism to enforce the bond’s conditions.
3. Balancing Public Interest and Individual Rights:
– Whether the policy strikes a fair balance between the state’s need for rural healthcare and the professional autonomy of medical graduates.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari emphasized the need to ensure procedural fairness. The court remarked, “The enforcement of a bond must not create undue hardship or impede professional growth. A balance must be maintained between public interest and individual rights.”
The judges also noted that withholding documents like degrees and NOCs could severely impact students’ career opportunities, making such actions disproportionate to the intended purpose of the bond.
The case was tagged with two related petitions—W.P. Nos. 27790 and 14900 of 2024—indicating that the issue has broader implications across the state.
Court’s Interim Decision
In its interim order, the High Court directed the respondent authorities to return the petitioner’s original documents, including the NOC, by November 18, 2024. The court clarified that this direction was subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
The court also issued a notice to the state government, seeking a detailed response on the justification and implementation of the bond policy. The case will continue to be heard along with the related petitions, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases nationwide.
