This site is intended for healthcare professionals only
LoginRegister

HC relief to doctor previously held guilty of medical negligence, upholds Honorary Doctorate

Barsha MisraWritten by Barsha Misra   |  
HC relief to doctor previously held guilty of medical negligence, upholds Honorary Doctorate
  • whatsapp
  • Telegram

Kolkata: Observing that Courts should not interfere in the academic matters and such decisions should be left to experts, the Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the decision of the University of Calcutta in awarding the prestigious D.Sc. honorary degree to Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, who had earlier been held guilty in a medical negligence case.

Taking note of the argument of the petitioner Dr. Kunal Saha that the University had committed a gross abuse of power by granting Dr. Mukherjee with the D.SC degree when the Supreme Court had earlier held him primarily responsible for the death of Dr. Saha's wife, the HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj noted, "It is further found that the selection of the respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 1 has not undermined the sanctity or honour or dignity of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or violated Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The honorary degrees are awarded to achievers in their respective fields. This does not warrant the interference of the Constitutional Court. Thus, where the nature and subject matter of a decision is not amendable due to judicial process because the court is not competent to deal with the matter, the court should not intrude into such questions."

The history of the controversy goes back to 1998 when the wife of the petitioner had died on May 28, 1998 due to gross negligence by Dr. Mukherjee. Following this, Dr. Saha lodged a complaint before the State Council alleging medical negligence under Bengal Medical Act, 1914. However, by an order dated 18th June, 2002, the State Council exonerated Dr. Mukherjee of the charges of medical negligence.

Also Read: Doctors cannot be held Negligent because they could not save the patient: Supreme Court

Following this, the petitioner Dr. Saha approached the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. While considering the complaint, the Supreme Court had held Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee as primarily responsible" for the death of the petitioner's wife. However, it sustained the judgement of acquittal passed by the Court previously, but opined that the judgement of the commission in which Dr. Saha's plea for compensation was rejected was wrong and the case was remitted to the commission for the purpose of determining of quantum of compensation. Thereafter, the Supreme Court on 24th October, 2013, awarded highest-ever compensation for the wrongful death of the petitioner's wife with scathing criticisms of Dr. Mukherjee.

Meanwhile, on August-November, 2012, Dr. Mukherjee was appointed as the "chief adviser" to the West Bengal Health Department which was challenged by Dr. Saha. The Hon'ble Court, nonetheless, issued notice to the respondents in that matter on 16th August, 2012 directing to delete the name of Dr. Mukherjee from the array of parties. This direction was challenged before the Supreme Court and currently the matter is pending before the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court.

In fact, several other petitioner had been filed against Dr. Mukherjee seeking cancellation of license granted the doctor, challenging the conferment of "Banga Bibhushan" award by the State of West Bengal on Dr. Mukherjee and and assailing the appointment of Dr. Mukherjee as a member of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory omission respectively. However, all the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court.

On 1st January, 2019, the petitioner Dr. Saha came to know that Dr. Mukherjee had been selected by Calcutta University for the prestigious honorary D.Sc., highest academic degree, which the University awards to people of high moral, professional and personal character in advancement of science.
Arguing that such a decision of the University undermined the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation, the petitioner Dr. Saha approached the High Court and sought to know the following queries from the High Court-
i. Whether the conferring of the honorary academic degree D.Sc. to the respondent no. 2 by the University is discriminatory and violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
ii. Whether the conferring of the honorary degree D.Sc. to the respondent no. 2 is against public interest and undermines the sanctity and dignity of the entire judicial system since he has been held guilty of "medical negligence" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?
iii. Whether the conferring of the honorary academic degree D.Sc. to the respondent no. 2 by the University violates the words and spirits of Article 144 of the Indian Constitution?
The petitioner doctor contended that all public and private authorities including government universities are duty bound to respect directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and must always act in the aid of the Supreme Court as stipulated under article 144 of the Indian Constitution.
Conferral of the Honorary academic degree like D.Sc. to a doctor who has been held guilty of "medical negligence" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court amounts to public glorification of a grossly tainted doctor, argued the petitioner.
Alleging that the public glorification of a doctor who has been found to be reckless, negligent and unethical person is a contemptuous act and has brought "great disrespect" to his profession, the petitioner doctor further contended that by promoting the negligent doctor, the public and government academic institutions are responsible for the pain and anguish to the living victims of "medical negligence".
On the other hand, the University of Calcutta contended that Doctor Sukumar Mukherjee is known for his excellence in the field of medicine. As such, there cannot be any assertion made against the University that it has acted beyond its authorities in bestowing Dr. Mukherjee with the honorary degree of D.Sc, it was argued by the University.
Further the University also pointed out before the High Court bench that the expertise of the Doctor Sukumar Mukherjee in the field of Medicine was unquestionable.
Taking note of all the submissions made by both the parties, the HC bench held that, "it is not the expertise of this Court to decide the criteria of awarding of the honorary D.Sc. degree. As mentioned in section 22 (1) of The University Grant Commission (UGC) Act,1956, the right to conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under the section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of the Parliament to confer or grant degree."
The bench also referred to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., where the top court had examined the provision of the UGC Act and the purpose for which the Act was enacted. In that matter the top court had observed that it was the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that proper standards and uniformity are maintained in institutions for higher education and research throughout the country and after noticing the statement of object and reasons of the UGC Act, it pointed out that in view of Section 22 of the Act, the right to confer or grant a degree can be exercised only by a University.
Referring to this, the HC bench held, "Thus, to confer a degree is solely at the discretion of the University of Calcutta in the instant case. The Supreme Court even laid down a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decision of academic bodies. It would normally be wise and safe for courts to leave the decision of academic matters to the experts who are more familiar with problems they face than the courts as held in D.A.V College v. State of Punjab."
"This Court does not agree with the submission that the respondent no. 1 acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. It is a fact that the petitioner instituted several litigations against the respondent no. 2 and that some interparty litigation is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further found that the selection of the respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 1 has not undermined the sanctity or honour or dignity of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or violated Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The honorary degrees are awarded to achievers in their respective fields. This does not warrant the interference of the Constitutional Court. Thus, where the nature and subject matter of a decision is not amendable due to judicial process because the court is not competent to deal with the matter, the court should not intrude into such questions," noted the court.
"Hence, this Court is not getting into the merits of awarding the D.Sc. degree to respondent no.2 by respondent no.1 since that is the domain and expertise of an education institution like the University of Calcutta, moreover, this court will not get into the technicalities on the basis of which such a degree was awarded to the private respondent," added the bench as it dismissed the petition.
To read the HC order, click on the link below.
Calcutta High CourtCalcutta universitySupreme Courtmedical negligenceDr Sukumar Mukherjeedegree of doctorate in scienceD.SC
Barsha Misra
Barsha Misra

Barsha completed her Master's in English from the University of Burdwan, West Bengal in 2018. Having a knack for Journalism she joined Medical Dialogues back in 2020. She mainly covers news about medico legal cases, NMC/DCI updates, medical education issues including the latest updates about medical and dental colleges in India. She can be contacted at editorial@medicaldialogues.in.

Show Full Article
Next Story
X
sidekick