Nigam Prakash Narain vs National Medical Commission

2026 INSC 453 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 22707 OF 2023]

DR. NIGAM PRAKASH NARAIN … APPELLANT

VS.

NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

THE APPEAL

2. The present appeal stems from a judgment and order dated 24th

August 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna1 in L.P.A.

Signature Not Verified No. 1608 of 2017, whereby the Division Bench, in exercise of its intra- Digitally signed by JATINDER KAUR Date: 2026.05.06 17:28:56 IST Reason: 1 High Court

Page 1 of 16 court appellate jurisdiction, allowed the appeal preferred by the

Medical Council of India2 (since substituted by the National Medical

Commission3) and set aside the judgment and order dated 20 th

September 2017 passed by the Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13547 of

2016, thereby restoring the order of penalty dated 21 st July 2016

passed by the Ethics Committee of the MCI4, which had directed

removal of the name of Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain5 from the Indian

Medical Register for a period of three months. The challenge to such

judgment and order is at the instance of Dr. Narain.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Facts giving rise to the lis are as follows:

3.1. Dr. Narain is a paediatrician. He holds a Ph.D. in Paediatrics and

M.R.C.P. from the Royal College of Physicians, London, and has been

registered as a medical practitioner with the Bihar Council of Medical

Registration since the year 1976. He served as a faculty member in

the Department of Paediatrics, Patna Medical College, Patna 6 since

1985, attaining the position of Professor and Head of the Department

of Paediatrics from which he superannuated on 30th September 2014.

3.2. Post his retirement from the PMC, Dr. Narain was appointed as

Professor, Department of Paediatrics, at Shridev Suman Subharti

2 MCI 3 NMC 4 Ethics Committee 5 Dr. Narain 6 PMC

Page 2 of 16 Medical College & Hospital, Dehradun7 on 3rd January 20158. Pursuant

to this appointment, on 22nd January 2015, an MCI inspection was

conducted at the SSSMC, wherein Dr. Narain appeared as faculty of

the said institution before the Inspecting Team of the MCI.

3.3. In the meanwhile, Dr. Narain received an offer to rejoin the PMC

as Professor on a non-cadre post of Professor on contractual basis.

Accordingly, Dr. Narain submitted his resignation to the SSSMC vide

letter dated 6th April 2015 and stood formally relieved from service

vide relieving certificate dated 7th April 20159. On the very same date,

i.e., 6th April 2015, the Bihar Government, Health Department, issued

a notification for the contractual appointment of Dr. Narain at the PMC.

Dr. Narain joined the PMC on contractual basis on 10th April 2015, in

pursuance of the office order of even date issued by the Principal, PMC.

3.4. Prior to the seed of the lis, i.e., the surprise inspection scheduled

to be conducted by the MCI at the PMC on 5th May 2015, Dr. Narain

had, on 21st April 2015, signed a Declaration Form (which was co-

signed by the Head of the Department, Paediatrics, and the Principal

of the PMC on 27th April 2015) and left the same with the Principal for

safekeeping, to be produced before the Assessors of the MCI at the

time of the surprise inspection. It is the admitted position that the said

Declaration Form did not contain any mention of Dr. Narain’s short

stint at the SSSMC during the same academic year.

7 SSSMC 8 vide appointment letter bearing Ref. No. JNSCT/2015/01/1596 9 Bearing Ref. No. JNSCT/2014/04/310

Page 3 of 16 3.5. On 5th May 2015, the MCI conducted a surprise inspection at the

PMC. Dr. Narain, however, was not present in the country on the date

of the inspection. He had applied for and granted Ex-India leave for six

days from 4th May 2015 to 9th May 2015, to attend the 48th Annual

Meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology,

Haematology and Nutrition10 held at Amsterdam, Netherlands. Dr.

Narain left India on 4th May 2015 and arrived in Amsterdam on 5th May

2015, whereafter he returned to India on 10th May 2015. In the

absence of Dr. Narain, the lis seed, i.e., alleged false/incomplete

Declaration Form (kept in readiness with the Principal, PMC) was

produced before the Assessors of the MCI during the inspection.

3.6. The MCI thereafter constituted a Sub-Committee to investigate

the matter of alleged fake faculty declaration forms for the academic

year 2015-16, concerning doctors whose names appeared in more

than one medical college. On 9th December 2015, the MCI issued a

show cause notice11 to Dr. Narain, under the provisions of the Indian

Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics)

Regulations, 200212 wherein the Sub-Committee’s observation was

communicated that “Dr. Narain had appeared for inspection in SSSMC

on 22nd January 2015 and thereafter, in the same academic year, had

appeared for inspection in PMC on 5th May 2015, without disclosing the

fact of his appearance in the first inspection”.

10 ESPGHAN 11 Bearing No. MCI-211(2)(91)(18)(Complaint)/2015-Ethics/154747 12 2002 Regulations

Page 4 of 16 3.7. Dr. Narain submitted a detailed reply by his letter dated 18th

December 2015, accompanied by a sworn affidavit dated 19 th

December 2015. He denied that he had signed any declaration form in

front of the Assessors on the day of inspection at the PMC and asserted

that since MCI inspections are always surprise inspections, the

declaration forms are customarily prepared well in advance by the

institution and kept ready for production. He placed on record his

passport and visa documents establishing his presence in Amsterdam

on 5th May 2015. He also acknowledged that he had appeared before

the MCI Inspection Team at the SSSMC on 22nd January 2015 as a

faculty member of that institution. Separately, the Principal, PMC, also

sent a representative, namely Shri S. N. Sharma, who was the Head

of Department of Physiology, to the meeting before the Ethics

Committee, submitting a clarification and stating that Dr. Narain did

not appear in the inspection held on 5th May 2015 as he was on Ex-

India leave from 4th May 2015 to 9th May 2015 to participate in

ESPGHAN at Amsterdam. It was also submitted that the matter was fit

to be dropped from consideration under Clause 8.513 of the 2002

Regulations.

3.8. The Ethics Committee, at its meetings held on 22 nd and 23rd

December 2015, concluded the aforesaid matter and found that Dr.

Narain was not guilty of appearing at MCI inspections in two medical

13 8.5 During the pendency of the complaint the appropriate Council may restrain the physician from performing the procedure or practice which is under scrutiny.

Page 5 of 16 colleges in the same academic year, inasmuch as he was abroad

attending a conference when the PMC was inspected on 5th May 2015.

3.9. The decision of the Ethics Committee was placed before the

Executive Committee14 of MCI at its meeting held on 27th February

2016 for approval. The Executive Committee, instead of approving the

aforesaid conclusion, decided to refer the matter back to the Ethics

Committee with advice to verify whether Dr. Narain had disclosed the

fact of his appearance at the SSSMC assessment in his declaration

form submitted for the PMC assessment held on 5th May 2015. It is

submitted by Dr. Narain that no notice of this development was given

to him.

3.10. In light of the observations of the Executive Committee, the

Ethics Committee purportedly perused the file and opined that the fact

of Dr. Narain’s appearance at the SSSMC on 22nd January 2015 as

Professor (Paediatrics) in the MCI assessment during the same

academic year was not disclosed in the Declaration Form submitted for

the PMC assessment on 5th May 2015. The Ethics Committee,

therefore, opined that Dr. Narain had thereby committed an act of

serious misconduct as a doctor and as a faculty member of a medical

college, and decided that his name be removed from the Indian

Medical Register for a period of three months from the date of

notification. The recommendation of the Ethics Committee was

14 Executive Committee

Page 6 of 16 approved by the Executive Committee of MCI at its meeting held on

15th June 2016. It is categorically submitted by Dr. Narain that no

opportunity of hearing was afforded to him in the course of these

developments.

3.11. Pursuant to the aforesaid, MCI issued order dated 21st July

201615 directing that the name of Dr. Narain be removed from the

Indian Medical Register for a period of three months from the date of

notification.

3.12. Aggrieved thereby, Dr. Narain preferred a writ petition16 before

the High Court, praying for quashing of the MCI order dated 21st July

2016 and for a direction restraining Respondent No. 2 (the Registrar,

Bihar Council of Medical Registration) from acting in pursuance of the

said order.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

4. The Single Judge, by the judgment and order dated 20 th September

2017, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty dated

21st July 2016. The Single Judge found, inter alia, that: (i) the

resignation of Dr. Narain from the SSSMC and its acceptance was not

disputed by the Ethics Committee or the MCI; (ii) Dr. Narain accepted

the assignment at the PMC on contract only after resigning from the

SSSMC, and therefore ceased to be a Faculty at the SSSMC the day

15 Bearing No. MCI-211(2)(91)(18)(Complaint)/2015-Ethics/121346 16 C.W.J.C. No. 13547 of 2016 Page 7 of 16 his resignation was accepted, thus, he had no mens rea to be faculty

at two medical colleges simultaneously, as he gave up his position at

the SSSMC before accepting the offer at the PMC; (iii) the MCI and the

Ethics Committee did not objectively examine this fact and instead

took a very strict and technical view of the alleged aberration or

omission, despite Dr. Narain having given up his position prior to

assuming responsibility at the PMC; and (iv) while not being against

the object and purpose of the Regulation, the decision to strike down

the name of Dr. Narain from the Register of the Indian Medical

Practitioner for three months was, in the facts of the present case, an

erroneous decision.

5. The aforesaid judgment and order was carried in appeal17 by the MCI

before the Division Bench of the High Court. Notably, during the

pendency of the said appeal, vide order dated 17th May 2023 passed

in I.A. No. 3/23, the NMC was substituted by in place of the MCI.

THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

6. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench allowed the

intra-court appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Single

Judge. While allowing the appeal:

6.1. The Division Bench upheld the power and duty of the MCI to

conduct surprise inspections with a view to ensuring that standards of

17 L.P.A. No. 1608 of 2017.

Page 8 of 16

medical education are maintained and the minimum requirements as

per the MCI guidelines are facilitated in every medical college.

6.2. On the question of the lis seed, i.e., alleged false/incomplete

declaration, the Division Bench found that the signatures on both the

Declaration Forms (i.e., the one submitted for the SSSMC inspection

on 22nd January 2015, and the one submitted for the PMC inspection

on 5th May 2015) tallied. It held that the Declaration Form for the PMC

was dated 21st April 2015 and was signed by Dr. Narain in the presence

of the Head of the Department and the Principal of the PMC; the

signature of the HOD was co-dated 27th April 2015, far before the date

of inspection. It held that Dr. Narain could not disown the said

declaration merely on account of his absence from the country on the

date of the inspection.

6.3. The Division Bench held that the declaration submitted for the

PMC assessment did not disclose Dr. Narain’s prior service with the

SSSMC during the same academic year. In the academic year 2014-

15, Dr. Narain had been first with the PMC, then with the SSSMC, and

later again with the PMC on contract, which raises the issue of whether

Dr. Narain had wrongly facilitated the SSSMC to enable approval from

the MCI. It was of the view that such omission could not be condoned

as a mere bona fide inadvertence, given the significance of such

declarations to the process of approval by the apex regulatory body.

Page 9 of 16 6.4. On the question of limitation, the Division Bench disagreed with

the Single Judge’s finding and held that Regulation 8.418 of the 2002

Regulations, which provides that decision on a complaint against a

delinquent physician shall be taken within a time limit of six months,

is only a caution to ensure expeditious disposal and does not constitute

a bar that would frustrate an otherwise valid complaint against a

medical practitioner. The Division Bench read Regulations 8.4 and

8.719 conjunctively to arrive at this conclusion.

6.5. The Division Bench found no violation of principles of natural

justice, holding that the absence of Dr. Narain on the date of inspection

was not a significant circumstance since what assumed relevance was

the production of a declaration made and signed by Dr. Narain himself.

6.6. Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order

of the Single Judge and restored the order of the Ethics Committee. It

further directed that any notification required to be issued pursuant to

the order of penalty shall be issued within three weeks from the date

18 8.4 Decision on complaint against delinquent physician shall be taken within a time limit of 6 months.

19 8.7 Where either on a request or otherwise the Medical Council of India is informed that any complaint against a delinquent physician has not been decided by a State Medical Council within a period of six months from the date of receipt of complaint by it and further the MCI has reason to believe that there is no justified reason for not deciding the complaint within the said prescribed period, the Medical Council of India may-

(i) Impress upon the concerned State Medical council to conclude and decide the complaint within a time bound schedule;

(ii) May decide to withdraw the said complaint pending with the concerned State Medical Council straightaway or after the expiry of the period which had been stipulated by the MCI in accordance with para(i) above, to itself and refer the same to the Ethical Committee of the Council for its expeditious disposal in a period of not more than six months from the receipt of the complaint in the office of the Medical Council of India.

Page 10 of 16

of receipt of the certified copy of its judgment, while also observing

that the penalty shall operate only for the period for which it was

imposed.

ISSUES INVOLVED

7. In view of the aforesaid factual narrative, the following limited issue falls for our determination:

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the judgment of the Single Judge and in restoring the order of the Ethics Committee?

ANALYSIS

8. What has not been disputed are the core facts. The fact that after his

superannuation from the PMC, Dr. Narain was appointed as a Professor

with the SSSMC, Dehradun on 3rd January 2015; he was formally

relieved from service under the SSSMC on 7th April 2015; on 6th April

2015 he was appointed as Sr. Professor with the PMC; that he signed

the Declaration Form for the PMC on 21st April 2015; that the surprise

inspection was conducted on 5th May 2015; that Dr. Narain was not in

India on the date of inspection and was participating in ESPGHAN at

Amsterdam; that on 9th December 2015 he was issued a notice with

respect to fake faculty declaration form submitted during the

inspection conducted at PMC on 5th May 2015; Dr. Narain replied to

the letter with a sworn affidavit on 18th December 2015; and that on

21st July 2016, the MCI issued the letter accepting the

Page 11 of 16 recommendation of Ethics Committee to remove the name of Dr.

Narain from the Indian Medical Register for a period of three months.

9. The letter of Executive Committee which was impugned before the

High Court, reads thus:

Whereas, the Ethics Committee considered the above matter at its meeting held on 18 April, 2016. The operative part of the decision reproduced as under:

“The Ethics Committee further considered the matter and noted that the Ethics Committee at its meeting held on 22nd & 23rd December, 2015, concluded the above matter. The above decision of the Ethics Committee after confirmation was placed before the Executive Committee at its meeting held on 27th February, 2016, for approval. While perusing the above minutes, the Executive Committee observed as under:-

“The Committee decided to refer back with an advice to verify whether Dr. N P Narain had disclosed the fact of his appearance at Subharti, Dehradun assessment into his declaration form submitted for Patna medical college for the assessment held on 5.5.2015 and resubmit the matter.” In light of the observations of the Executive Committee, the Ethics Committee perused the file again and noted that Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain was absent on the day of assessment at Patna Medical College and went to abroad for a Conference.

Moreover, Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain has not disclosed the fact of his appearance in the first medical college at Shridev Suman Subharti Medical, Dehradun, Uttarakhand on 22.01.2015 as Professor (Pediatrics), in MCI assessment during the same academic year. The Ethics Committee further noted that by withholding information from MCI, regarding in two medical colleges within the same academic year by Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain has done an act of serious misconduct as a doctor and faculty member of a medical college. In view of above, the Ethics Committee decided that the name of Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain, be removed from the Indian Medical Register for a period of 3 (Three) months from the date of notification.”

Page 12 of 16 The above recommendation of the Ethics Committee was approved by the Executive Committee of the Council at its meeting held on 15.06.2016.

10. Initially, charge framed in the show cause notice required Dr. Narain

to explain his conduct with respect to fake faculty declaration forms

where names of doctors appeared in more than one medical college.

It was his defence—uncontroverted by the respondents—that when the

inspection came to be conducted at the PMC on 5th May 2015, he was

not in India.

11. Dr. Narain, in his reply, which also enclosed a sworn affidavit by him,

exhibited that neither of the declaration forms signed by him were

fake. He admitted his signatures and contended that on the date of

inspection at the PMC, he was participating in ESPGHAN at Amsterdam.

Having accepted the reply, the Executive Committee referred the

matter back to the Ethics Committee, which observed that Dr. Narain

had not disclosed his appearance as a faculty with the SSSMC in the

declaration form submitted during the inspection carried for the PMC—

a charge that did not form a part of the show cause notice dated 9th

December 2015.

12. Once the charge originally framed against Dr. Narain was successfully

defended by him, the Ethics Committee (on being prodded by the

Executive Committee) proceeded to hold Dr. Narain guilty of an act of

omission, which was at variance with the charge. This was without

informing him of the same and without calling for his explanation.

There has, indeed, been a breach of principles of natural justice. A

Page 13 of 16 coordinate bench of this Court in Ravi Oraon v. State of

Jharkhand20 has held that 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. This would be

a denial of fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and in violation

of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the Executive Committee

could not have imposed the punishment without issuing a fresh show

cause notice and/or without granting Dr. Narain a fair and reasonable

opportunity to respond to the new/alternative charge under

consideration. We quite appreciate that the Executive Committee’s

decision, to that extent, does suffer from a serious flaw.

13. However, despite such flaw, sight cannot be lost of the fact that Dr.

Narain has failed to answer, with any degree of conviction, why and

how was the mis-declaration21 made, which was alleged in the

Executive Committee’s order dated 21st July 2016. Failure to explain

such a brazen mis-declaration, ipso facto, would afford a ground to

view such mis-declaration as misconduct. Such mis-declaration on the

part of Dr. Narain could not have been condoned by the Executive

Committee.

14. What is of relevance now is the quantum of punishment.

20 2025 SCC Online SC 2192 21 made on 21st April 2015, relevant part of which reads: 2. I have not presented myself to any other Institution as a faculty in the current academic year for the purpose of MCI assessment.

Page 14 of 16

15. At this juncture, we might also hasten to note that during pendency of

the writ petition before the Single Judge, the operation of the decision

of the Executive Committee was stayed. After the order of Single Judge

in Dr. Narain’s favour, the Division Bench did not stay the operation of

the Single Judge’s order or direct enforcement of the Executive

Committee’s decision. After the Division Bench’s decision adverse to

him, Dr. Narain approached this Court by way of the present petition.

On 13th October, 2023 a Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing

notice in the petition, stayed the operation of the impugned order.

16. The decision of the Executive Committee dates back to 21st July 2016.

Almost a decade has passed since then. Dr. Narain is now 76 years of

age, having had the sword of Damocles hanging over his head since

the last ten years. While it is true that there has been a lapse on his

part by mis-declaration in the Declaration Form—one which he now

fairly admits—in the larger scheme of things, it may not be in the

interest of justice to uphold the penalty imposed by the Executive

Committee. The NMC, as is its professional obligation, is duty bound

to ensure that the professional repute of doctors is maintained at its

highest level within its governance framework. The order we propose

to pass is not to fault the process undertaken by the MCI but to ensure

complete justice between the parties. Accordingly, in exercise of our

powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we request the

NMC to reduce the punishment imposed by the Executive Committee

from removal of Dr. Narain’s name from the Indian Medical Register

Page 15 of 16 for 3 months to issuance of a censure/ warning. An order to that effect

may be issued by the NMC to Dr. Narain.

17. Thus, the civil appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Interim orders,

if any, stand vacated.

………………………………….J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

………………………………….J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 06, 2026.

Page 16 of 16