Supreme Court holds medical misconduct penalty cannot rest on a new charge without fresh show cause notice and fair hearing.
Case Name: Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain v. National Medical Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 453
Date of Judgment/Order: 6 May 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Held: The Supreme Court held that a medical practitioner cannot be punished on a charge different from the one stated in the show cause notice without being given a fresh notice and a fair opportunity to respond. The Court held that once Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain had successfully answered the original allegation that he appeared in inspections of two medical colleges in the same academic year, the Ethics Committee and Executive Committee could not shift the basis of misconduct to non-disclosure in the declaration form without first putting that specific charge to him. Such action violated principles of natural justice. However, the Court also held that the admitted mis-declaration in the faculty declaration form could not be ignored and was capable of being treated as misconduct, though the punishment required moderation in the facts of the case.
Summary: Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain, a senior paediatrician and former Professor and Head of Department at Patna Medical College, briefly served at Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College, Dehradun, where he appeared before the MCI inspection team on 22 January 2015. He later resigned, was relieved on 7 April 2015, and joined Patna Medical College on contractual appointment. Before a surprise MCI inspection at Patna Medical College on 5 May 2015, he had signed a declaration form on 21 April 2015, which did not mention his earlier appearance at Subharti during the same academic year. On the date of the Patna inspection, he was abroad attending a medical conference in Amsterdam. The original show cause notice alleged fake faculty declaration and appearance in two inspections, which he answered by proving that he was not in India on 5 May 2015. The Ethics Committee initially accepted this, but after the Executive Committee referred the matter back, he was punished for non-disclosure in the declaration form without being issued a fresh notice on that charge. The Single Judge set aside the penalty, while the Division Bench restored it. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench failed to properly account for the change in the charge and the resulting breach of natural justice.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal in part and modified the consequence of the disciplinary action. It held that the Executive Committee’s decision suffered from a serious flaw because punishment was imposed on a new or alternative charge without fresh notice or opportunity of hearing. At the same time, considering that Dr. Narain had made a mis-declaration and had fairly admitted the lapse, the Court exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to request the National Medical Commission to reduce the punishment from removal of his name from the Indian Medical Register for three months to issuance of a censure or warning. The Court noted that almost a decade had passed since the penalty order, that Dr. Narain was now 76 years old, and that complete justice would be served by substituting the penalty with censure/warning. The appeal was allowed in these terms and interim orders stood vacated.