Doctors’ practice during duty hours is against human rights: CAT

Srinagar, Aug 13: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has held that the application of principles of natural justice is not a “straitjacket” as there are certain exceptions laid down by the apex court as regards the applicability of the rules of natural justice.

Observing that practice by medicos during duty hours would not only be against the morals but also against the human rights, a bench of M S Latif, Member (Judicial) declined to put on hold a government order dated July 28, 2025, issued by the Health and Medical Education Department insofar it related to prohibiting a doctor working in department of orthopedics in Government Medical College (GMC), Anantnag from engaging in any formal private practice in J&K with immediate effect.

The government order barred the doctor from private practice, allegedly for doing the same during duty hours.

“The allegation against the petitioner, per se, does not amount to any misconduct, as contended in the J&K Employees Conduct Rules,” the medico’s counsel said.

The aggrieved medico has based his plea on the contention that the order had been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as he was entitled to a fair hearing and an opportunity to present his case before the decision was made. According to the plea, the order barring the medico from private practice should have been passed after having been given him a pre-decisional hearing, which has not been done, as no show-cause notice was issued to him as was required by law.

“The order, as such, is nothing less than a hostile discrimination,” it said.

In his plea, the medico denies the allegation that he indulged in private practice during duty hours, saying the official record maintained by the respondents during the normal course of business vouches for his discharge of duties during his entire working hours.

The allegation against the petitioner, per se, does not amount to any misconduct, as contended in the J&K Employees Conduct Rules”, the medico’s counsel said.

“The principles of natural justice is an embodied principle of law; it speaks of fairness, and any order passed, which is detrimental to the interests of an individual, natural justice is necessarily to be followed. Application of principles of natural justice is not a straitjacket; there are certain exceptions laid down by the apex court as regards the applicability of the rules of natural justice, like the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem,” the tribunal said in response to the plea.

Before seeking a government response to the aggrieved doctor’s plea, the tribunal made certain observations.

“There is a devotion and dignity attached to the profession of a doctor, who takes an oath to serve humanity, the ailing and dying patients, irrespective of caste, creed or sex, and it is for this reason that doctors are, at times, called small gods. The reason for this is that a doctor gives deliverance from pain to an ailing patient and, as already stated, for that ailing patient, a doctor is no less than a god, as it is widely said that a doctor treats and God heals,” the bench said.

The tribunal observed that the primary concern was that private practice could lead to a decline in the quality of patient care provided in government hospitals, as the doctors may prioritise their private patients over those who approach the government facilities.

“It is not unknown that a patient travels hundreds of kilometres to reach a government-run hospital with the hope that he will have a doctor there to tend to him, and providing the life care is an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, and no person can be deprived of the same”.

The tribunal observed that at the same time, the patient has to be in the queue to wait for his turn to come up, and if he finds that the government doctor is not in the hospital, it would be depriving him of his fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution.

“Cases are not unknown, where doctors get tempted to refer the patients from public hospitals to their private clinics, creating a conflict of interest, though exceptions are always there,” it said.

Private practice by government doctors can erode public trust in the healthcare system, as the patients feel that they are not receiving adequate care in the government hospitals, the tribunal said.

The tribunal observed that though there is no ban on private practice in J&K, “a doctor, seen practising during duty hours, would not only be against the morals but also the human rights”.

While the court noted that patient care is of utmost importance and there can be no compromise on it, it said: “The schemes like Ayushman Bharat, PM Jan Arogya Yojna, and ABPMJ Sehet Scheme, are all introduced to provide the best health care especially to the citizens, who cannot afford private nursing homes and hospitals.”

Nearly 90 percent of the population in India is dependent on the government-provided healthcare, it said.

After hearing the parties, the court issued notice on the plea that was accepted by DAG Syed Musaib, who was granted four weeks to file his detailed response by September 23.  In the meantime, it held that the respondents were free to initiate an inquiry against the doctor under the law and by providing ample opportunity to him to put forth his case before the competent authority.

It directed the competent authority to pass appropriate orders within 30 days.

In response to the submission that a stay was granted in a similar case at Jammu, the tribunal declined to put on hold the government order, given the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also keeping in view the health care involved and to curb the menace of private practice by government doctors during their duty hours.