He disobeyed a court order. The judge suspended his medical licence. The Supreme Court said no.

When a Court Suspended a Doctor’s License, the Supreme Court Said: Not So Fast

Dr. Gostho Behari Das, a medical practitioner in Siliguri, built a structure that deviated from the plans the Siliguri Municipal Corporation had approved. A neighbour, Dipak Kumar Sanyal, complained. The municipal authorities did nothing. So Sanyal went to court. That set off a chain of litigation that, sixteen years later, ended with the Supreme Court asking a deceptively simple question: can a judge, in contempt proceedings, suspend a doctor’s license to practice medicine?

The answer, delivered by a two-judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice B.R. Gavai on July 28, 2023, was a firm no. And in that answer, the Court drew a bright line between contempt of court and professional misconduct — two regimes that, the Bench held, cannot be mixed.

The Building That Started It All

Dr. Das constructed a building in Siliguri that, according to the municipal corporation’s records, did not match the sanctioned plan. In 2016, Sanyal filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri). The Court directed the municipal authorities to inspect the construction and submit a report. That was WP No. 11464(W)/2016, decided on December 22, 2016.

The Commissioner of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation then ordered demolition on June 13, 2018. But the High Court quashed that order, holding that the Commissioner was not the competent authority — only the Board of Councillors could order demolition. The Board did exactly that on June 25, 2019, observing that the construction was unauthorized and ordering its demolition.

Dr. Das challenged that order in a second writ petition, WPA No. 349/2019. The High Court disposed of it with an observation that the appeal lay before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal. That appellate authority, on January 8, 2020, directed the municipal corporation to either aid Dr. Das in self-demolition or undertake the demolition itself. A follow-up order on July 28, 2020 reiterated the same direction.

But the demolition did not happen. And that is when Sanyal moved the High Court in contempt.

The Contempt Proceedings — and the Shock Order

Sanyal filed WPCRC 9/2022 before the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri), alleging that Dr. Das had wilfully disobeyed the court’s orders by not demolishing the unauthorized construction. The Single Judge agreed. And then, in an unusual move, the Judge suspended Dr. Das’s license to practice medicine.

The order, dated July 11, 2022, was followed by further orders on July 12 and July 14, 2022, extending the suspension and issuing a show-cause notice for a two-year suspension. Dr. Das appealed to the Division Bench in MAT No. 67/2022. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s orders.

Dr. Das then approached the Supreme Court.

What the Contempt of Courts Act Actually Says

The Supreme Court began by examining the statutory framework. Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines contempt of court as either civil contempt or criminal contempt. Section 2(b) defines civil contempt as “wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.”

Section 12 of the Act prescribes the punishment for contempt. It is exhaustive. A court can impose simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or a fine up to Rs. 2,000, or both. Section 12(2) contains a non-obstante clause that bars any punishment exceeding what Section 12(1) specifies.

“The punishment for contempt of court is limited to what is provided under Section 12 of the Act,” the Bench observed. “Suspension of a professional license is not one of them.”

The Precedents That Bound the Court

The Supreme Court did not write on a clean slate. It relied on a line of precedents that, taken together, left no room for the High Court’s order.

First, Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor (1945 AC 264), where the Privy Council held that the summary power of punishing for contempt “should be used sparingly and only in serious cases.” Its usefulness, the Privy Council said, “depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised.”

Then, C.S. Karnan, In re (2017) 7 SCC 1, where this Court explained that the authority to punish for contempt exists not to protect individual judges but “to inspire confidence in the sanctity and efficacy of the judiciary.”

In Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC 374, the Court warned that the contempt power “must be delineated with deliberation and operated with serious circumspection,” because “its uncertain frontiers may unwittingly trench upon civil liberties.”

W.B. Administrative Tribunal v. SK. Monobbor Hossain (2012) 11 SCC 761 reiterated that contempt jurisdiction is “only for upholding the majesty of the judicial system” and that courts “must not be hypersensitive or swung by emotions but must act judiciously.”

But the most directly relevant precedent was Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409. In that case, the Court held that “suspending the licence to practice of any professional like a lawyer, doctor, chartered accountant when found guilty of contempt is not a recognized or accepted punishment which a court of record can impose on a contemner.”

That, the Bench said, was the end of the matter.

Contempt and Professional Misconduct: Two Separate Regimes

The Supreme Court also drew a crucial distinction between contempt of court and professional misconduct. The two, the Bench held, are separate and distinct offences governed by different statutes. Contempt is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Professional misconduct by a doctor is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

“A medical practitioner guilty of contempt of court may also be guilty of professional misconduct,” the Court observed, “but the same would depend on the gravity and nature of the contemptuous conduct.” The key point: the contempt court cannot impose a professional sanction. That power rests exclusively with the statutory body — in this case, the National Medical Commission.

The Court drew an analogy from Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar (1975) 2 SCC 702, where it was held that disciplinary action against advocates rests exclusively with the Bar Council, and no litigant or member of the public can directly commence disciplinary proceedings.

THE PLAY: If you are a litigant or a judge facing a contemnor who is a professional, do not use contempt proceedings to impose professional sanctions. File a separate complaint before the relevant statutory body — the Bar Council, the Medical Commission, the Institute of Chartered Accountants — and let that body decide on professional misconduct.

What the Supreme Court Ordered

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment in MAT No. 67/2022 and the Single Judge’s orders dated July 11, 12, and 14, 2022. Dr. Das’s license to practice medicine was revived. The appeal was allowed.

But the Court did not stop there. It directed Dr. Das to furnish an undertaking before the High Court regarding the completion of remedial construction and the demolition of the remaining unauthorized construction, within a reasonable time. The contempt proceedings, in other words, could continue — but the punishment had to stay within the four corners of Section 12.

Why This Matters for Practitioners

For advocates, this judgment is a reminder that contempt jurisdiction, while powerful, is not a Swiss Army knife. It cannot be used to impose sanctions that the statute does not provide. If a contemnor is a professional — a doctor, a lawyer, a chartered accountant — and the contemptuous conduct also amounts to professional misconduct, the court must refer the matter to the relevant statutory body. It cannot, in the guise of punishing contempt, suspend a professional license.

For CFOs and founders, the takeaway is equally clear. If you are involved in litigation and a court orders you to do something — demolish a building, pay a sum, produce documents — do it. Wilful disobedience can land you in contempt. But if the court, in its zeal to punish you, goes beyond what the Contempt of Courts Act allows, you have a remedy. The Supreme Court has now drawn the line.

The bottom line: A court cannot suspend a professional license as punishment for contempt of court — that power belongs exclusively to the statutory body governing that profession, and any order doing so will be set aside on appeal.