The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a BAMS‐qualified Ayurvedic doctor challenging the state government’s refusal to grant sanction for prosecuting an inspection team that had searched his clinic in Ujjain. The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, upheld the finding of the sanctioning authority that the complaint was a mere tactic to harass public officials engaged in performing their duties.
The case involves a long-standing clinic run by the doctor and his wife, both registered as BAMS practitioners under the state board, in Ujjain for nearly twenty years. On May 18, 2011, an inspection team (respondents 4-6) entered the clinic without providing the required certification from the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) of Ujjain district. During the inspection, it was discovered that patients were being admitted and administered IV drips and injections, and that there was a sizeable stock of allopathic medicines, which BAMS practitioners are generally not authorized to use without proper certification. The premises were sealed, and reports were submitted to the relevant Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Subsequently, the CMHO allowed the clinic to function on condition that allopathic medicines not be administered, and conditioned the wife to refrain from using the professional designation “Gynaecologist.”
In 2014, a complaint was lodged by a third party, which was forwarded through official channels and resulted in the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) being directed to register an FIR. The doctor also filed a criminal complaint against the members of the inspection team, invoking several IPC provisions including wrongful restraint, house-trespass, defamation, assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour, among others. Various courts and tribunals considered the matter, including a trial court and the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court held that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was mandatory—that is, public servants cannot be subjected to prosecution for actions in discharge of official duties without sanction from the government.
The doctor made a request to the State Government for sanction to prosecute the inspection team, which was refused. A Single Bench of the High Court had earlier dismissed the challenge to that refusal. The doctor then appealed to the Division Bench. He argued that the inspection team acted without lawful authority, as they had no assigned, explicit duty to inspect his clinic, and therefore the protections under Section 197 CrPC should not apply.
The High Court, however, noted that the doctor did not deny the inspection team’s findings, particularly the presence of allopathic medicines administered in his clinic. The Court observed that a competent authority—the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department—had issued directions to district collectors and police superintendents to take action against quackery. Following that directive, the SDM (Revenue), Nagda, had constituted a committee which carried out the inspection. The Court found no evidence of personal enmity, fabrication of records, or any other malice. An RTI reply claimed that no such team was constituted was found unpersuasive as being issued without proper verification.
The Bench held that the inspection team was acting in discharge of public duty, and thus protection under Section 197 CrPC was warranted. Because no valid case was made out against the public servants, the refusal of sanction was lawful. The appeal was dismissed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.