Netas can't play police, judge or administrator: Supreme Court in Sena corporator-doctors assault case

Elected representatives cannot assume the role of the police, the administration or the courts, the Supreme Court has asserted, issuing a stern warning that the authority conferred by an electoral mandate cannot be used to intimidate citizens, enforce personal will or supplant the institutions of the state.

"No person, howsoever high the office held, can claim supremacy over the discipline of law," a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held in a judgment released on Friday, stressing that the legitimacy of public authority rests not on the power to command but on the obligation to remain within the bounds of law.

The court said that allegations of elected representatives using force, intimidation or other extra-legal means to deal with citizens and public functionaries raised a larger concern for constitutional democracy.

"Democracy confers power through the ballot, but the exercise of that power remains subject to the discipline of law," noted the bench.

The observations came in a case involving Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, whose bail the court cancelled while hearing an appeal by the Maharashtra government. Mhatre is accused of leading an assault on three doctors, including a woman doctor, at Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital in Dombivli, Thane, on July 6, following a dispute over the shifting of a pregnant woman in labour. The court directed Mhatre and the three other accused to surrender before the trial court by October 5.

The bench underlined that violence by a person holding elected office was particularly grave because it not only endangered the safety and dignity of medical professionals but also undermined the responsibility attached to public office to uphold the rule of law.

"An elected representative, by virtue of the office entrusted to him, bears a heightened responsibility to uphold the authority of law and to conduct himself in a manner that reinforces public confidence in public institutions," the bench said.

The court added that the authority derived from an electoral mandate could never become a substitute for the authority of law and that public office carried a corresponding obligation to respect the institutions through which citizens' grievances were to be addressed.

Turning to the broader issue of violence against the healthcare workers, the bench said doctors must be able to discharge their duties without the fear of physical violence, intimidation or coercion. Their safety, it said, was not a matter of personal privilege but a safeguard necessary for the delivery of proper medical care.

"The relationship between a doctor and a patient is founded on a degree of trust that goes beyond an ordinary commercial or service relationship," the court said. Medical professionals, therefore, needed an environment in which they could exercise independent judgment with concentration and composure.

While patients and their families were entitled to question treatment, complain of negligence or delay, the court said such grievances had to be pursued through lawful remedies.

"What the law cannot countenance is the substitution of these remedies by threat, violence and coercion," said the court.

The bench noted that the alleged assault in the present case had created such fear among the victim doctors that they tendered their resignations, while the incident also prompted concerns about the ability of medical professionals to work without insecurity.

The court further referred to a subsequent incident in Palghar, Maharashtra, in which doctors and hospital staff were allegedly assaulted by political functionaries. While noting that the incident constituted an independent cause of action, it said the episode reinforced concerns about the insecurity prevailing among medical professionals.

The judgment also emphasised that medical professionals were not beyond scrutiny or accountability. Any allegation of negligence or dereliction of duty, it said, had to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and applicable guidelines.

In cancelling the bail granted to Mhatre and the three co-accused, the court found that the Bombay high court had failed to adequately consider material circumstances, including criminal cases attributed to Mhatre. The bench noted that 18 criminal cases had been registered against Mhatre, including cases involving allegations of serious offences, although he had secured acquittal or discharge in 16 proceedings. It said the antecedents attributed to an accused were a relevant consideration in deciding bail and could not be disregarded where they bore on the possibility of repeated criminal conduct. The court also questioned the high court's decision to restore bail after it had initially stayed the magistrate's bail orders.

Beyond cancelling bail, the Supreme Court directed the state government to independently examine, in accordance with law, whether preventive detention provisions were attracted in the circumstances of the case. It also ordered the trial court to ensure protection for material witnesses, particularly doctors and hospital staff.