The central legal point established in the judgment is the pending consideration of the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the validity of Clause 8.8 of the Regulations, 2002 before the Supreme Court, which influenced the court's decision to stay the impugned orders.

Manmohan, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order passed by the Ethics Committee of respondent-Medical Council of India (for short 'MCI') dated 27th October, 2012 and the decision of the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI dated 10th December, 2012 whereby, the name of the petitioner has been directed to be struck off from the Indian Medical register for a period of three years.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the husband of the deceased had filed a complaint dated 5th May, 2009 with the Police who had forwarded the same on 28th May, 2009 to the Government of NCT of Delhi requesting the Delhi Medical Council (for short ‘DMC’) to give its opinion in this matter. Meanwhile, father of the deceased, respondent no. 2-Mr. S.P. Manchanda had also filed a complaint dated 10th June, 2009 with the DMC in the matter. The impugned decision and order of MCI has been passed in an appeal filed under Clause 8.8 of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (for short "Regulations, 2002) by respondent no. 2Mr. S.P. Manchanda, being aggrieved by the order passed by the DMC dated 7th June, 2010.

3. The judgment in the present writ petition was reserved on 3rd December, 2013. The following order was passed:-"ALKA GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Anil Goel, Adv. with Mr. Ashwini Goel, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ratnakar Maltiyar, with Petitioner in person. versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv. for R-1. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL ORDER 03.12.2013 Arguments heard. Reserved for the Judgment....."

4. Vide order dated 10th January, 2014, the same Court observed as under:- "........By a separate order, W.P.(C) 1334/2013 has been disposed of. There are doubts about maintainability of W.P. (C) 889/2013 in view of provision of Section 24(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Since the matter has to be reheard, subject to orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, list before the Roster Bench on 16.01.2014......."

5. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court. In view of the aforesaid order, parties were called upon to assist this Court on the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short "Act, 1956").

6. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel for MCI stated that in the process of assisting this Court in terms of the order dated 10th January, 2014 and on searching case law on the internet with reference to Section 24(2) of the Act, 1956 he found that a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Rupa Basu (Banerjee) Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., W.P. No. 9740(W) of 2009, decided on 17th February, 2010 had held that in the light of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 1956, Clause 8.8 of Regulations, 2002 is unconstitutional.

7. Clause 8.8 of Regulations, 2002 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"8.8. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the State Council on any complaint against a delinquent physician, shall have the right to file an appeal to MCI within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the said Medical Council:

Provided that MCI may, if it is satisfied that the appellant wasprevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days allow it to be presented within a further period of 60 days."

8. The relevant portion of learned Single Judge's judgment in Dr.(Mrs.) Rupa Basu (Banerjee) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"36. Similarly in exercise of the powers conferred in clause (m) of Section 33 of the Act the Medical Council of India is empowered, subject to previous sanction of the Central Government, to make regulation to carry out the purposes of the Act so far as it relates to "the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be observed by medical practitioners". So by virtue of s