Supreme Court to Review Indian Medical Council Act & Validity of 2002 Regulations Clause Amid Legal Dispute.

Alka Gupta Versus Medical Council of India and Ors.

Alka Gupta Versus Medical Council of India and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order passed by the Ethics Committee of MCI and the decision of the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI.
2. Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
3. Validity of Clause 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.
4. Jurisdiction of MCI to entertain appeals under Clause 8.8.
5. Binding effect of the Calcutta High Court's judgment and the Supreme Court's stay order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Order Passed by the Ethics Committee of MCI and the Decision of the Erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 27th October 2012 by the Ethics Committee of MCI and the decision dated 10th December 2012 by the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI, which directed the petitioner's name to be struck off from the Indian Medical Register for three years. The complaint was initially filed by the husband and father of the deceased with the Delhi Medical Council (DMC). The MCI's impugned decision was in response to an appeal under Clause 8.8 of the Regulations, 2002.

2. Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
The court called upon the parties to assist in interpreting Section 24(2) of the Act, 1956, which pertains to the appellate jurisdiction of the Central Government over decisions made by the State Medical Councils. The provision's interpretation was crucial in determining whether the MCI had the authority to entertain appeals under Clause 8.8 of the Regulations, 2002.

3. Validity of Clause 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002:
Clause 8.8 allows any person aggrieved by a State Medical Council's decision to appeal to the MCI within sixty days. The Calcutta High Court, in Dr. (Mrs.) Rupa Basu (Banerjee) vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., had held Clause 8.8 unconstitutional, as it exceeded the powers conferred under Section 33(m) of the Act, 1956. This judgment was under appeal, and the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Calcutta High Court's decision, thereby reviving the Single Judge's judgment declaring Clause 8.8 unconstitutional.

4. Jurisdiction of MCI to Entertain Appeals under Clause 8.8:
The court examined whether the MCI had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 under Clause 8.8 when the order declaring it unconstitutional was in force. The MCI continued to entertain appeals under Clause 8.8, believing that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. Mr. Karan Bharioke argued that the MCI lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and pass the impugned order.

5. Binding Effect of the Calcutta High Court's Judgment and the Supreme Court's Stay Order:
The court considered whether it was bound by the Calcutta High Court's judgment and the Supreme Court's stay order. Mr. Rabin Majumder contended that the Calcutta High Court's judgment was not binding. The court, however, disagreed with the view expressed in Pijush Kanti Chowdhury (supra), asserting that a stay order from a superior court means the lower court's order ceases to operate.

Conclusion:
The court decided to await the Supreme Court's judgment on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 1956, and the validity of Clause 8.8. Consequently, it stayed the impugned order passed by the Ethics Committee of MCI and the decision of the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI until the petition's disposal. The application CM Appl. No. 1689/2013 was disposed of, and the matter was listed in the category of 'Regular Matters' according to its seniority.