IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the regulatory nature of the Acts, the importance of mandatory registration for disciplinary actions in case of professional misconduct, and the convenience provided for seeking transfer of registration to another State Medical Council.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, A.C.J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (`PIL') seeking quashing of the Public Notice dated 24th December, 2023 (`the Notice'), issued by the Respondent No.1 - Delhi Medical Council (`DMC'), directing any person practicing modern scientific system of medicine (Allotpathy) in Delhi to be mandatorily registered with the DMC in terms of provisions of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 (`DMC Act').

1.1. The Notice further directs that all the Medical Establishments i.e., Hospitals, Nursing Home, Polyclinics, Charitable Dispensaries, Diagnostic Centers etc., to ensure the validity of DMC registration of the doctors before utilizing their services and to ensure that the DMC registration of the doctors working therein is renewed every five (5) years as per the DMC Act.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that now that the Respondent No.1 has made it mandatory for the medical practitioners to be registered with it in order to practice the medicine in Delhi, the individuals who are already registered with some other State's Medical Council will have to either surrender the other said State's registration and get themselves registered with Respondent No.1 or they will have to get themselves registered with both State's Medical Council, which will lead to multiple State registration(s).

2.1. He states that a medical practitioner registered with his/her respective State's Medical Council is not necessarily required to be registered with another State's Medical Council. In this regard, he relies upon the erstwhile Medical Council of India's (`MCI') [superseded by Respondent No.2 - National Medical Commission (`NMC')] minutes of Ethics Committee meeting dated 2nd September, 2004, wherein it is stated that there is `no necessity' of registration in more than one State Medical Council because a doctor, who has registered with any State medical council is automatically registered in the Indian Medical Register (`IMR') and also by virtue of Section 27 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (`IMC Act'), a person, whose name is included in the IMR, can practice anywhere in India. He states that therefore, this imposition of mandatory registration by the Respondent No.1 is illogical and not mandated by law. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of Yash Nigam (Dr.) v. Delhi Medical Council, (2004) 76 DRJ 64.

2.2. He states that illustratively, the illegality and undesirability of the same can be deciphered from an instance where a medical practitioner, who is predominantly practicing in Gurugram and registered with Haryana Medical Council has to attend to a medical case in Delhi, he cannot do so unless he is registered with Respondent No.1. He states that in similar instances, the registration with two different State Medical Councils is cumbersome.

2.3. He lastly, states that Section 31 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (`NMC Act'), prescribes for maintenance of two (2) separate types of medical registers i.e., National Register and respective State's Medical Register. He states that in terms of Section 31 of the NMC Act, the inclusion of medical practitioner's name in National Register is a prior event and regularly updating the same in respective State's Medical Register is a subsequent event. He states that therefore, the latter event of this nature cannot be forced up on anybody when the prior event i.e., registration in National Register, has taken place.

3. In reply, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 - DMC states that the said Notice has been issued to curb the menace of professional misconduct by medical practitioners practicing in Delhi. He states that this Court in a separate PIL being W.P.(C) 15655/2023 has been approached by the family of patients on account of the alleged professional misconduct of the medical practitioner(s). He states that in pursuance to the aforesaid, the Respondent No.1, in order to enable