Back
Parallel Practice: Backs Probe into Doctors Running Private Ventures
The of India has sternly signaled that the integrity of public healthcare is a matter of paramount importance, refusing to intervene in an ongoing investigation into allegations that government doctors are surreptitiously operating private medical practices. A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain a ( ) filed by an Associate Professor, marking a significant judicial stance against the "parallel healthcare system" reported within government institutions.
The Backdrop: A System Under Scrutiny The dispute stems from proceedings at the , which has been monitoring the deteriorating conditions at the and its associated in Prayagraj. The High Court had initiated a high-level inquiry following claims that senior medical staff were treating patients in private clinics despite strict government prohibitions against private practice.
The situation gained national attention after reports suggested that patient pathways were being manipulated—patients were allegedly transferred from the public facility to private nursing homes, including those linked to the staff of the medical college. The High Court further noted broader systemic failures, pointing to years-long delays in infrastructure projects, such as the incomplete Cardiology Department, despite the availability of government funds.
The Arguments: Personal Grievance vs. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court’s reliance on an concerning a personal dispute unfairly targeted his client, Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh. He contended that the inclusion of his client in the broader investigation into the medical college was misplaced as he was not a party to the original .
The , however, remained unmoved by these personal arguments. Justice Nagarathna reframed the dispute, clarifying that the proceedings were an exercise in rather than a personal vendetta against any specific individual.
Key Observations The bench emphasized that the scope of the High Court's inquiry is a "larger public issue" that transcends individual disputes:
-
"The cause is very good. Because government doctors should not do and you are also a doctor."
— Justice B.V. Nagarathna -
"There is nothing personal against you. It is for all doctors who are indulging in private practice."
— Justice B.V. Nagarathna -
"It appears that the condition of the
and the attached hospital... has deteriorated not because there is a shortage of funds... but it is the medical fraternity who is failing the object of the Government."
— (Observation referenced by the bench)
The Judicial Verdict Recognizing the Court's firm disinclination to interfere with the ongoing probe, the petitioner requested permission to withdraw the . The granted the withdrawal while refusing to provide any further liberty to approach the High Court, effectively allowing the ’s oversight of the high-level inquiry and infrastructure projects to continue undisturbed.
This outcome reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that those tasked with public service adhere to the highest professional standards, signaling that institutional accountability will remain a priority when the is at stake. As the high-level committee begins its work, the health sector will be watching closely to see if this judicial intervention serves as a catalyst for systemic reform in medical governance.
