The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on May 6, 2026, has set aside a High Court order that had restored a three-month removal of a senior pediatrician’s name from the Indian Medical Register. Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench reduced the penalty to a “censure/warning,” noting the doctor’s advanced age and a procedural breach in the disciplinary process.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain, a 76-year-old pediatrician and former Head of Department at Patna Medical College (PMC), was accused of professional misconduct by the Medical Council of India (MCI).
Following his retirement from PMC in 2014, Dr. Narain joined Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College (SSSMC), Dehradun, in January 2015. He later resigned from SSSMC in April 2015 to rejoin PMC on a contractual basis. On April 21, 2015, Dr. Narain signed a Declaration Form for PMC, which omitted his prior stint at SSSMC within the same academic year.
A surprise inspection by the MCI at PMC on May 5, 2015, occurred while Dr. Narain was in Amsterdam for an international conference. Based on the Declaration Form produced by the PMC Principal, the MCI issued a show-cause notice alleging he had appeared for inspection at two colleges in one year.
Procedural History
The Ethics Committee initially found Dr. Narain not guilty of the primary charge because he was abroad during the PMC inspection. However, the Executive Committee of the MCI directed a re-verification of whether he had disclosed his SSSMC appearance in the PMC form. Without a fresh notice to the doctor, the Ethics Committee kemudian found him guilty of “serious misconduct” for withholding information and directed his removal from the Register for three months.
A Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashed this penalty in 2017, citing a lack of mens rea. However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this in 2023, restoring the penalty and holding that the omission was significant and could not be condoned as “bona fide inadvertence.”
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma identified a significant procedural flaw. The Court observed that once Dr. Narain had successfully defended the original charge (appearing in two inspections), he was punished for a different charge (non-disclosure in the form) without being given a fair opportunity to respond.
The Court cited the precedent in Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand (2025), noting:
“Once a delinquent employee had 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.”
The Court termed this a “denial of fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice.”
However, the Court also noted that Dr. Narain failed to explain the “brazen mis-declaration” in his form, where he had explicitly stated: “I have not presented myself to any other Institution as a faculty in the current academic year for the purpose of MCI assessment.” The Court maintained that such a lapse could afford grounds to view it as misconduct.
The Decision
Considering that nearly a decade had passed since the 2016 decision and that Dr. Narain is now 76 years old, the Court decided to balance the professional standards of the medical fraternity with the interests of justice.
The Court stated:
“Dr. Narain is now 76 years of age, having had the sword of Damocles hanging over his head since the last ten years… it may not be in the interest of justice to uphold the penalty imposed by the Executive Committee.”
Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court requested the National Medical Commission (NMC) to reduce the punishment from a three-month removal to the issuance of a “censure/warning.”
The civil appeal was allowed in these terms, and all interim orders were vacated.
Case Details
- Case Title: Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain vs. National Medical Commission & Ors.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22707 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
- Date: May 06, 2026
