The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre and three others accused of assaulting doctors at a municipal hospital in Dombivli, Maharashtra, stressing that elected representatives cannot use political authority to intimidate citizens or take the law into their own hands.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said an electoral mandate does not give public representatives authority to act as police officers, administrators or courts. The court observed that all public authority remains subject to the rule of law.
The case relates to an alleged assault on three doctors, including a woman doctor, at Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital in Dombivli, Thane, on July 6. The incident reportedly followed a dispute over the shifting of a pregnant woman in labour.
The Supreme Court directed Mhatre and the three other accused to surrender before the trial court by October 5 while hearing an appeal filed by the Maharashtra government against the bail orders.
Court stresses responsibility of elected representatives
The bench said elected representatives carry a heightened responsibility to uphold the law and maintain public confidence in state institutions.
It noted that democratic authority is derived from the ballot but cannot replace the authority exercised through established legal institutions. The court also stressed that no individual, regardless of the office held, can claim to be above the law.
According to the judgment, allegations of elected representatives using force, intimidation or other extra-legal methods to address grievances raise concerns extending beyond an individual criminal case and touch upon the functioning of constitutional democracy.
Doctors must be able to work without fear
The Supreme Court also addressed the broader issue of violence against healthcare professionals, observing that doctors must be able to perform their duties without fear of physical violence, threats or coercion.
The bench said the doctor-patient relationship involves a level of trust that requires medical professionals to be able to exercise independent judgment with concentration and composure.
The court noted that the alleged assault had created fear among the doctors involved, with the incident reportedly leading some of them to resign. It also referred to a separate incident in Palghar involving alleged assaults on doctors and hospital staff by political functionaries, while clarifying that the Palghar matter was an independent cause of action.
Medical complaints must be addressed through legal channels
The court said patients and their families have the right to question medical treatment and raise allegations of negligence or delay. However, such concerns must be pursued through legally recognized mechanisms rather than through threats, violence or coercion.
At the same time, the bench clarified that doctors are not exempt from scrutiny. Allegations of negligence or dereliction of duty must be examined in accordance with the law and applicable professional guidelines.
Court considers Mhatre’s criminal antecedents
While cancelling the bail, the Supreme Court said the Bombay high court had not adequately considered relevant circumstances, including Mhatre’s criminal antecedents.
The bench noted that 18 criminal cases had been registered against Mhatre, although he had been acquitted or discharged in 16 of those matters. It held that an accused’s antecedents can be relevant while considering bail, particularly where they may have a bearing on the possibility of repeated criminal conduct.
The Supreme Court also questioned the high court’s decision to restore bail after it had initially stayed the magistrate’s bail orders.
In addition to cancelling the bail, the court directed the Maharashtra government to independently examine, in accordance with law, whether preventive detention provisions could apply in the case.
The trial court was also directed to ensure protection for material witnesses, particularly doctors and hospital staff.
