Delhi High Court: A petition was filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful disobedience of directions contained in judgment dated 17-09-2019 passed in a case whereby the Union of India (respondent) was directed to consider afresh the application of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (‘IGNOU’) for grant of recognition to the Post-Graduate Diploma in Clinical Cardiology (‘PGDCC’) qualification awarded by it under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council (‘IMC’) Act. Mini Pushkarna, J., passed no additional orders as substantive compliance was achieved because the Central Government had undertaken an independent exercise in consultation with expert bodies before deciding the recognition of the PGDCC qualification.
The petitioner is an association of Clinical Cardiologists, which is a registered society of doctors across the country holding Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (“MBBS”) qualifications in addition to the PGDCC conferred by the IGNOU. The case involved a petitioner seeking recognition for the Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Cardiology (PGDCC) qualification awarded by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). The petitioner alleged that the Central Government had failed to grant recognition to the PGDCC qualification despite directions from the court.
A writ petition was filed seeking directions to the Union of India to recognize the Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Cardiology (‘PGDCC’) granted by IGNOU, as a recognized medial qualification for the purposes of Section 11(2) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court held that IGNOU was not required at the time of commencing the PGDCC course to obtain the previous permission of the Central Government under Section 10(A) of the IMC Act. Thus, the petitioner’s application had to be considered by the Central Government without considering the requirement of prior permission of the Central Government. Therefore, the Central Government again rejected the application of the petitioner on the same ground that prior permission of the Central Government was not taken. Thus, this is a clear violation of the judgment dated 17-09-2023.
The petitioner argued that the Central Government had not complied with the court’s directions to reconsider the application for recognition of the PGDCC qualification. The petitioner contended that the Government’s refusal to grant recognition was unjustified and sought appropriate action against the government for contempt of court.
The Court conducted a thorough analysis of the case, considering the submissions made by both parties. It examined the original judgment and the directions issued therein regarding the recognition of the PGDCC qualification. The Court also reviewed the actions taken by the Central Government in response to the court’s directions. The Court noted that contempt jurisdiction is a special and rare power available to the courts. It emphasized that the court’s role in contempt proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with the directions issued in the original judgment. The Court cannot go beyond the scope of the original order or issue additional directions not found in the judgment.
The Court held that the Central Government had undertaken an independent exercise in consultation with expert bodies before deciding on the recognition of the PGDCC qualification. The Court found that substantive compliance had been achieved, and no further orders were required in the present petition.
[Indian Association of CLinical Cardiologists v Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 962, decided on 05-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. A. S. Pujari, Mr. Zeeshan Thomas, Mr. Pallav Chatterjee & Mr. Siddharth Kaushal, advocates for petitioner
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. S. Sachdeva, GP & Mr. Chandar Kumar, under secretary, MOHFA
