W.P.[MD]No.9562 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 08.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.[MD]No.9562 of 2021

and

W.M.P(MD)Nos.7318 and 7319 of 2021

Dr.M.S.Jackson

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Registrar,

Tamil Nadu Medical Council

New No.914, Old No.569,

Poonamallee High Road,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai-600 106.

... Respondent

P RAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records

relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his

proceedings in Reference No:TNMC/T.No.601/2020, dated 28.04.2021 and

quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer

For Respondent : Mr.Sathish Babu

O R D E R

***********

The order impugned dated 28.04.2021, which is an order of

punishment removing the name of the writ petitioner from the

registration roll by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, is under

challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The petitioner is a medical practitioner and registered his

name in the Tamil Nadu Medical Council in the year 1999 in

Registration No.62820. The petitioner states that he is a public

interest person and further involved in one political party in the

name of “Democratic Corruption Liberation Front”.

3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the respondents

issued an order in proceedings dated 28.04.2021 imposing the

punishment of deletion of his name from the medical registration of

Tamil Nadu Medical Council. Accordingly, the petitioner is not

entitled to practice for a period of one year.

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.[MD]No.9562 of 2021

4.The question arises whether the opinion offered by the

medical practitioner in respect of certain circumstances could be

construed as a misconduct or offence, warranting such a punishment

of deletion of his name from the medical registration of Tamil Nadu

medical council. The charges framed against the writ petitioner

reveals that he induced general public to take lightly the risks of

COVID-19 and stating that containment measurement of the Government

is not proper. At the outset, lock down during the COVID-19

Pandemic period, imposed by the Government was opined as unnecessary

by the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner uploaded videos,

whats-Aapp messages and provided informations to the general public.

The respondent has formed an opinion that the conduct of the

petitioner became unnecessary and caused panic amongst the general

public.

5.This Court is of the considered opinion that COVID-19

infection was muted the world and many countries have struggled even

to find out the solution for curing the diseases. Even opinions

given by the World Health Organization found to be incorrect in

certain circumstances by leading medical practitioners at the

initial stage as there was lot of informations different opinions

were offered by the medical experts across the globe and the people

were really in panic during the pandemic period. Several medical

experts have offered their opinions based on their experience and

based on certain research. All such opinions cannot be said to be

correct or such opinions were acted upon by the Government or by the

other medical practitioners. Opinions are to be treated as opinion

and implementation of the opinion are the prerogative of the

authorities competent and the Government concerned. Mere offering an

opinion by a medical practitioner with reference to the disease

cannot be construed as a misconduct and in such circumstances, a

medical practitioner will not be in a position to practice medicine

freely and without fear. In the event of initiation of such actions

against the medical practitioner, the other medical practitioner

will be afraid for offering an opinion even in respect of such new

disease and the medic