Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 579

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 660-662 of 2020 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.3083-3085 of 2020]
Decided on : 08-10-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :Sidharth Luthra, Kunal Cheema, Jagvijay Gandhi, Aditi Parkhi, Shubhangini Jain, Pankaj Singhal, Indira Jaising, Sunil Fernandes, Nupur Kumar, Disha Wadekar, Prastut Dalvi, Zeeshan Diwan, Paras Nath Singh, Ujjaini Chatterjee, B.H. Marlapalle, Asha Gopalan Nair, Nivedita Nair, Aruna Savla, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Geo Joseph, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Advocates

The court balanced the individual rights of the appellants to pursue their courses of study with the interest of the prosecution in keeping the witnesses away from the possibility of influence by the appellants. The court concluded that the appellants must be allowed to continue their studies to avoid prejudicing their career, in line with their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
Suspension Order - Medical Education - 1999 Act, 2000 Regulations - The court allowed the appellants to re-enter the College and the Hospital to pursue their courses of study, subject to certain conditions, despite the Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019. The court held that the Order of Suspension was not based on the provisions of the 1999 Act or the 2000 Regulations and granted redress to the appellants. The court balanced the competing claims and concluded that the appellants must be allowed to pursue their studies to avoid prejudicing their career, in line with their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, three lady doctors pursuing Post Graduate medical course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and Obstetrics, completed two years out of three years’ of the course. The Order of Suspension was issued based on the registration of an FIR against the appellants, and the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee was not the basis for the suspension. The appellants sought relaxation of condition no. (iv) imposed by the High Court, which prevented them from re-entering the College and the Hospital to pursue their studies.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the appellants to re-enter the College and the Hospital to pursue their courses of study, subject to certain conditions, despite the Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019. The court held that the Order of Suspension was not based on the provisions of the 1999 Act or the 2000 Regulations and granted redress to the appellants. The court balanced the competing claims and concluded that the appellants must be allowed to pursue their studies to avoid prejudicing their career, in line with their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants should be allowed to re-enter the College and the Hospital to pursue their courses of study despite the Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019, which was not based on the provisions of the 1999 Act or the 2000 Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the individual rights of the appellants to pursue their courses of study with the interest of the prosecution in keeping the witnesses away from the possibility of influence by the appellants. The court concluded that the appellants must be allowed to continue their studies to avoid prejudicing their career, in line with their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appellants to re-enter the College and the Hospital to pursue their courses of study, subject to certain conditions, despite the Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019. The court granted redress to the appellants, holding that the Order of Suspension was not based on the provisions of the 1999 Act or the 2000 Regulations.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 21.02.2020 passed by the High Court¹[The High Court of Judicature at Bombay] in Interim Application Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2019 (preferred by Dr. Ankita Kailash Khandelwal, Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja and Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehare – respectively; who are collectively referred to as the Appellants hereafter) in Criminal Appeal No.911 of 2019.

3. The Interim Applications were preferred by the Appellants seeking relaxation of condition nos.(iii), (iv) and (v) imposed upon them in order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court while granting them bail.

4. The basic facts leading to the filing of said Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 2019, in brief, are as under:-

b) Dr. Payal Tadvi was also student of Post Graduate Degree Course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the College and completed first year of the course in April, 2019. She was thus a year junior to the Appellants and all of them were residents in the same Department and pursuing the same course.

c) On 22.05.2019 at about 9:00 p.m., Agripada Police Station, Mumbai received an information that Dr. Payal Tadvi had committed suicide by hanging herself in her room. Initially a case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’, for short) was recorded. After the complaint was lodged by the mother of Dr. Payal Tadvi that her daughter was harassed by the Appellants and that they were directly responsible for the suicide committed by her daughter, Crime No.157 of 2019 was registered against the Appellants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short), under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and also under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1999 Act’).

d) By communication bearing No. NDN/172 dated 27.05.2019, taking cognizance of the FIR registered against them, the Appellants were suspended by the Dean of the Hospital and the College. The relevant text of the communication addressed to Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehare, one of the Appellants was as under:-

“It has come to our notice that you have unofficially been absent from work since 22.05.2019. The Professor and the Head of department of Obstetrics and gynaecology have informed our office that you have been absent.

On 22.05.2019, Dr. Payal Salman Tadvi, who was pursuing Post Graduation at the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of Nair Hospital has committed suicide in hostel room no. 806. Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mother of Dr. Payal, has lodged a complaint with Agripada Police Station. Based on the complaint, an FIR has been lodged against Dr. Bhakti Mehere. Cr.Reg.No.157/99 under Section 306, Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, read with Section 4 of Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 read with Section 3(10) of SC, ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989; read with Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

Instead of cooperating with the investigation by the State in such a serious incident, you have gone missing from work as well as your residence with the intention to avoid the police investigation and without informing any of the officials and without taking prior permission. This has therefore, created hurdles in the inquiry being conducted by the Police/ Administration. In addition to this, an FIR against you has been lodged in Agripada Police Station. Taking cognizance of this, you are being suspended from 27.05.2019, till further orders.”

e) On the same date, report bearing no. N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document