Ethical standards expected from medical practitioners are exceedingly high! No HC relief to Doctor Accused of Illicit Distribution of Narcotic Substances

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to grant bail to a doctor accused of illegal distribution of narcotic substances under the guise of running a De-addiction Centre.

While considering the bail application of the doctor, who was Sections 420, 465, 468 of the IPC and Sections 22 and 32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the HC bench observed that the allegations against the petitioner doctor were grave, as he was accused of the illicit distribution of narcotic substances and the De-addiction Centre run by him was also operating without any valid licence.

"It is also pertinent to emphasize that general public reposes immense trust in the medical profession, particularly when seeking treatment. The ethical standards expected from medical practitioners, especially those operating De-addiction Centre, are exceedingly high, given that they deal with vulnerable patients who are susceptible to relapse. In this context, the allegation that a medical practitioner entrusted with care of such vulnerable individuals, has been involved in diverting narcotic substances and facilitating their illegal distribution in the community, is one that warrants serious consideration," the HC bench Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed.

Even though the Trial Court had granted bail to the petitioner doctor, the HC subsequently cancelled the default bail granted to the petitioner, based on the merits of the case, and directed the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court.

Again, filing a plea before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the doctor prayed for a bail. When the petitioner's counsel was asked to explain any material change in circumstances following the cancellation of his bail by the Court on 29.02.2024. It was submitted that the investigation has since been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner has now been in custody for a total of 11 months, excluding the time he was out on default bail.

Additionally, the petitioner's counsel asserted that the prosecution's case primarily rests on the allegation that the petitioner was illegally operating a De-addiction Centre and that he was allegedly not authorised to stock and dispense Buprenorphine due to an invalid or expired licence. However, the counsel argued that this was factually incorrect since the petitioner had a valid licence, which was operative until 11.09.2022, and in anticipation of the expiry of the licence in September 2022, the petitioner had promptly applied for its renewal in August 2022 ensuring compliance with all necessary formalities.

The petitioner's counsel argued that since the renewal process was initiated before the expiry of the original licence, the petitioner retained the authorization to stock and dispense all necessary medications, including Buprenorphine.

Moreover, as per the counsel, the licence in question was obtained by the petitioner as a precautionary measure and was not even required since he was registered under the Mental Health Act, 1987 valid until 19.06.2024. Further, he pointed out that as per Rule 6(3)(viii) of the Haryana De-addiction (Amendment) Rules, 2018, Psychiatric Nursing Homes and Hospitals holding a valid licence under the Mental Health Act, 1987, are exempt from obtaining a separate licence under these Rules. Therefore, it was asserted that this exemption was directly applicable to the petitioner, whose licence under the Mental Health Act, 1987 remains valid until 2024.

The doctor's counsel also argued that the legality of stocking and dispensing Schedule-H drugs by a medical practitioner is currently sub-judice and  a circular was issued by the Drug Controller of India in 2019 permitting the supply of Buprenorphine tablets to Psychiatric Clinics and Hospitals, in addition to De-addiction Centres.

On the other hand, the State counsel argued that of the petitioner was granted bail at this stage, there was a strong likelihood that he would attempt to influence or manipulate witnesses, particularly private individuals whose OPD cards were found during the raid at the petitioner's De-addiction Centre, as the protection evidence had not yet commenced.

Additionally, the State Counsel emphasized that the default bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the High Court, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations against him- the misuse and illegal diversion of narcotic drugs, specifically Buprenorphine, which is a strictly regulated substance due to its high potential for abuse, under the guise of his professional role as a doctor, and while operating a De-addiction Centre.

Further, the State Counsel argued that the operation of the petitioner's De-addiction Centre was not only unethical but also illegal, as the Centre's licence had expired seven months before the raid in question.

While the learned State Counsel acknowledged that Rule 6(3)(viii) of the relevant Rules provides certain exemptions for Psychiatric Nursing Homes and Hospitals, however, he submitted that these exemptions were not unconditional. They specifically mandate that all such De-addiction Centres/Institutions be registered with the Licensing Authority. This registration as per the learned State Counsel was a crucial regulatory safeguard intended to ensure that these facilities operated within the bounds of the law. The learned State Counsel contended that the registration certificate relied upon by the petitioner had expired on 11.09.2022, and the petitioner's application for renewal did not constitute a valid or effective renewal. At the time of the raid on his Centre, it was operating without the necessary legal authorization, constituting a clear violation of the rules and regulations governing De-addiction Centres.

Therefore, the State Counsel argued that continued administration and dispensation of Buprenorphine without a valid licence by the petitioner was, therefore, a serious offence, demonstrating a willful disregard for the law, especially considering the rampant drug addiction and trafficking issues that need to be addressed urgently and require strict enforcement.

Finally, the learned State Counsel argued that the quantity of Buprenorphine recovered from the petitioner's Centre was substantial, amounting to over 27,000 tablets. This quantity, confirmed by the FSL report, categorically fell under the classification of 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act. The recovery of such a large amount triggered the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposed rigorous conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.

While considering the matter, the HC bench observed that the petitioner's counsel failed to bring to the Court's notice of any material change in the circumstances since the passing of the court order, especially considering the fact that charges had not yet been framed by the Trial Court.

"The mere delay in proceedings before the learned Trial Court cannot be construed as benefiting the petitioner, especially since it is a matter of record that learned defence counsel for the petitioner before the learned Trial Court has sought no less than four adjournments on dates when the matter was listed for consideration of charges, on 10.01.2024, 30.01.2024, 15.02.2024 and 14.08.2024," the HC bench observed. 

It further noted,

"The allegations against the petitioner are grave, as he is accused of the illicit distribution of narcotic substances under the guise of running a De-addiction Centre, which itself was operating without any valid licence."

Referring to the Supreme Court order in the case of The State of Meghalaya Vs. Lalrintluanga Sailo & another, the HC bench denied bail to the petitioner doctor and observed, "In the light of the foregoing facts and circumstances and specially considering that there has been no change whatsoever in the circumstances since the dismissal of the previous petition—order that was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court—the petitioner does not merit the grant of regular bail at this stage."

To view the Court order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/punjab-haryana-hc-bail-252326.pdf

Also Read: All Medical colleges to have Tobacco Cessation Centres: NMC