Supreme Court – Respect for Doctors Integral to Public Trust in Healthcare
Judgment dated 28.9.2026 of the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Criminal) No.16674 of 2026 of the State of Mahashtra Vs. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre and others
The efficacy of medical care is inseparable from the trust and respect reposed in the doctors and nurses. This enduring truth finds eloquent expression in the following verse from the Suśruta Saṃhitā
“न स ससध्यसि वैद्यो वा गृहे यस्य न पूज्यिे । भवने पूज्यिे वासप यस्य वैद्यः स ससध्यसि ॥”
- In its literal sense, the verse conveys that a physician does not succeed in a house where he is not respected; where the physician is respected, his treatment succeeds. Though expressed in the language of an ancient medical tradition, the principle underlying the verse retains undiminished relevance even today.
Few responsibilities in a civilised society are as profound as that entrusted to a doctor. The special place accorded to the medical profession flows from the very nature of the service it renders to humanity. It concerns human life, human dignity and the alleviation of human suffering. A doctor is, therefore, required to bring to the discharge of his or her duties not merely knowledge and technical competence, but also sound judgment, patience, composure and compassion. The responsibility is consequently of a character that extends beyond the mere provision of a professional service.
The ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca aptly expressed the thought, while the physician is paid for his professional service, gratitude remains owed for the kindness and care that transcend the service itself
t is the prosecution’s case that, on 6th July, 2026, at about 8:00 p.m., respondent No. 1, Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre3, an elected Corporator of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation from Ward No.24, led respondent Nos.2 to 4, namely, Ramesh Laxman Pawar, Pramod @ Prakash Uddhav Nikam and Akshay Sharad Karande, in assaulting and verbally abusing three doctors, including a lady doctor, who were on duty in the Labour Ward of Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital, Dombivli. 13. The incident arose from a dispute concerning the shifting of a pregnant patient in labour. The respondent No.1-Ramesh is further alleged to have 3Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent No.1-Ramesh”. 6 threatened the informant, Dr. Vaibhav Namdev Salunkhe4, thereby causing apprehension and fear, which, according to the prosecution, resulted in delay in registration of the First Information Report. 14. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that FIR No. 195 of 2026 came to be registered on 7th July, 2026 at Vishnu Nagar Police Station, Thane City at about 8:27 p.m. for offences punishable under Sections 121(1), 132, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20235, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010.
Notwithstanding the stage of investigation and the antecedents attributed to respondent No.1 Ramesh, who was stated to have 17-18 criminal cases registered against him, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 6th Court, Kalyan7, by order dated 14th July, 2026, enlarged respondent No.1 Ramesh on bail. 19. By a subsequent order dated 17th July, 2026, respondent Nos.2 to 4 were also enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate, principally on the ground of parity.
The High Court granted bail subject to certain conditions.
he respondent No.1-Ramesh continued to remain admitted in the prison ward of the District Civil Hospital, Thane, throughout his police custody remand from 10th to 13th July, 2026 and thereafter during his judicial custody, thereby substantially avoiding confinement in prison. Significantly, immediately upon issuance of the release memo pursuant to the order granting bail on 15th July, 2026, he sought discharge from the hospital. The aforesaid conduct, viewed in its entirety, raises a serious concern regarding the manner in which the influence attached to his position was utilised to circumvent the effective operation of the custodial process.
The material on record indicates that the incident had caused such fear and apprehension amongst the victim doctors that they were constrained to tender their resignations. This circumstance was not merely incidental to the individual allegations; it was directly relevant to the apprehension of intimidation and the ability of medical professionals to discharge their duties without fear or insecurity. The effect of the prejudicial conduct of the accused upon the functioning of the healthcare institution and the confidence of medical professionals, therefore, warranted due consideration while exercising discretion in the matter of bail
Cancellation of Bail to the Accused involved in brazen assault on Doctors and medical staff
