Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Order Date: 28 August 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner Dr. Siddhartha Buragohain (Assistant Professor, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Jorhat Medical College) versus the State of Assam, the Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, and the Assam Medical Council (respondent No. 5) represented by the Registrar.
- Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 07 September 2018 issued by the Assam Medical Council that withdrew the petitioner’s registration for a period of six months under Section 32(D) of the Assam Medical Council Act, 1999.
- Background Facts: On 16 July 2017 the petitioner, while on emergency duty at Jorhat Medical College, admitted Junali Das, a 31‑week pregnant woman with intra‑uterine fetal death. The patient was observed, handed over to the next duty doctor on 17 July, and subsequently managed by various doctors and visiting surgeons. A lower‑segment caesarean section (LSCS) was performed by Dr. Bornali Pegu under Dr. Runjun Doloi on 21 July; the patient died on 22 July due to pulmonary oedema.
- Administrative Actions: Following the death, the petitioner was transferred to Silchar Medical College (order dated 11 August 2017), suspended (order dated 25 August 2017), and barred from private practice. The Assam Medical Council, relying on Section 32(D), withdrew his registration for six months on 07 September 2018, directing surrender of the original certificate.
- Petitioner’s Submissions: Argued that removal of a name from the register must follow Section 23, which incorporates the safeguards of Section 17(b) – a due enquiry, opportunity of hearing, and a two‑thirds majority finding of guilt. Contended that no such procedure was observed, that the enquiry was premature, and that the council acted on the State Government’s request, amounting to malice.
- Respondent’s Submissions: Asserted that the petitioner received notice, submitted a written statement, and that a preliminary enquiry by the District Commissioner (report dated 25 July 2017) found serious negligence, justifying suspension and referral to the council. Maintained that the Ethical Committee acted within its powers under Section 32(D).
- Court’s Analysis: Determined that Section 32(D) confers quasi‑judicial power requiring compliance with natural justice. Found that the notice dated 16 September 2017 did not specify the allegations; the complaints forming the basis of the enquiry were not furnished; the petitioner was not informed of the precise case he had to meet; and the impugned order contained no reasons, no consideration of the defective duty‑roster system, nor any reconciliation of the material.
- Key Findings:
- The Ethical Committee’s power is quasi‑judicial and must be exercised with an effective opportunity of hearing and a speaking order.
- The petitioner was denied a specific show‑cause notice and the foundational complaints were unavailable.
- The enquiry failed to establish the alleged continuing responsibility of the petitioner after his rostered duty ended.
- The order dated 07 September 2018 was unsound for lack of reasoned consideration.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the impugned order withdrawing Dr. Buragohain’s registration for six months is legally infirm and set aside and quashed the order dated 07 September 2018.
- The Court directed that any future action by the competent statutory authority must:
1. Furnish specific allegations and the material on which the authority intends to rely.
2. Provide the petitioner with a meaningful and effective opportunity to meet those allegations.
3. Record a reasoned, speaking order that links the material to the conclusion.
- No opinion was expressed on the medical merits of the case or on the liability of other doctors.
- The writ petition was allowed; no costs were awarded; interim orders merged with this order; records of the Health Department to be returned.
Topics: Medical Registration, Natural Justice