The Supreme Court held that although a doctor’s non-disclosure in an MCI declaration form amounted to misconduct, punishment imposed without notice on the altered charge violated principles of natural justice; exercising powers under Art. 142 Const. of India, the Court reduced the penalty from suspension to censure.

 Facts

Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain, a senior paediatrician and former Professor at Patna Medical College (PMC), joined Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College, Dehradun (SSSMC) after retirement. He appeared before an MCI inspection team at SSSMC on 22.01.2015.

Subsequently, he resigned from SSSMC on 06.04.2015 and rejoined PMC on contractual appointment. Before an MCI surprise inspection scheduled at PMC on 05.05.2015, he signed a Declaration Form on 21.04.2015. The declaration did not disclose his prior appearance before the MCI inspection at SSSMC during the same academic year.

On the inspection date, however, Dr. Narain was abroad attending an international paediatric conference in Amsterdam. The declaration form signed earlier was nevertheless produced before the MCI assessors.

The Ethics Committee initially accepted his explanation that he had not physically appeared during the PMC inspection. Subsequently, upon reconsideration directed by the Executive Committee, the Ethics Committee found misconduct in the omission to disclose his earlier appearance at SSSMC and ordered removal of his name from the Indian Medical Register for three months.

The Single Judge set aside the punishment, but the Division Bench restored it. Dr. Narain appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed

Whether the punishment imposed by the Ethics Committee and affirmed by the Division Bench violated principles of natural justice.

Whether the omission in the declaration form constituted professional misconduct.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court noted that the original show cause notice alleged submission of “fake faculty declaration forms” and appearance in two colleges during the same academic year. Dr. Narain successfully defended that allegation by establishing that he was in Amsterdam on the inspection date and had not physically appeared before the PMC inspection team. (Paras 10–11).

(b) The Court held that the Ethics Committee subsequently shifted the basis of misconduct to “non-disclosure” of his earlier appearance at SSSMC in the declaration form. This altered charge was never put to Dr. Narain through a fresh notice or hearing. (Para 12).

(c) Relying upon Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, the Court held that punishment on a charge different from the original charge-sheet, without fresh notice and opportunity of hearing, violates principles of natural justice. The Executive Committee therefore committed “a serious flaw.” (Para 12).

(d) Nevertheless, the Court observed that Dr. Narain failed to satisfactorily explain the “mis-declaration” in the declaration form, particularly the declaration that he had not presented himself before any other institution during the current academic year. Such omission amounted to misconduct and could not be condoned. (Para 13).

(e) On proportionality of punishment, the Court considered that nearly ten years had elapsed since the 2016 order, Dr. Narain was 76 years old, and interim protection had continued throughout litigation. Exercising powers under Art. 142 Const. of India, the Court balanced equities and directed reduction of punishment from removal from the register for three months to issuance of a warning/censure. (Paras 15–16).

Held

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. While recognising misconduct in the declaration, the Court held that the disciplinary process suffered from breach of natural justice. In exercise of powers under Art. 142 Const. of India, the Court directed the NMC to substitute the penalty of three-month removal from the Indian Medical Register with a censure/warning. (Para 16).

Ratio

Where a disciplinary authority alters the basis of alleged misconduct after the delinquent has answered the original charge, punishment imposed without fresh notice and opportunity to respond violates principles of natural justice, though the Court may mould relief under Art. 142 Const. of India to balance misconduct and proportionality of punishment. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 453
Decided on: 6 May 2026
Case Title: Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain v. National Medical Commission & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma