Top court urges medical college to act with sympathy and help salvage nine-year-stalled medical career
New Delhi: After considering an emotional appeal made by a young doctor’s father, the Supreme Court has permitted the medico to tender an unconditional apology to his medical college for wearing a digital wristwatch during an examination, an incident that had derailed his academic career for nearly nine years.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also requested the university concerned to consider the doctor’s representation with “utmost sympathy” and make sincere efforts to ensure that the young professional’s medical career is not permanently destroyed over the incident.
While hearing the plea filed by the father, the Apex Court observed that the prolonged consequences suffered by the doctor amounted to punishment far exceeding the gravity of the misconduct. The bench noted that a nine-year block on pursuing higher medical studies was “more than sufficient punishment” and that any further obstruction would be “too harsh and disproportionate”.
In its observations, the Court took note of the father’s visible distress, stating that he was standing before the court “with folded hands” to protect his son’s academic future. The bench remarked that the frustration arising from the inability to pursue higher education appeared to have driven the father to file multiple complaints, though the Court found no merit in those allegations.
The case dates back to February 2017, when the doctor, then a student at Chennai-based Sri Ramachandra Medical College, was found wearing a digital watch during an examination. Citing the university’s strict policy on “unfair means”, the examination was cancelled. Although the student later cleared his papers, adverse remarks recorded in his MBBS marksheet continued to haunt his career.
Over the years, the family pursued extensive litigation, facing repeated setbacks in the High Court as well as the Supreme Court, which dismissed their review and curative petitions. As a result, the doctor remained unable to secure admission to higher specialised medical courses for nearly a decade.
According to media reports, the father appeared in person before the Supreme Court, alleging a wider conspiracy involving legal representatives and fabricated documents. He also claimed that the Bar Council of India failed to act on his complaints. However, the Court declined to reopen these issues or interfere with earlier orders.
Adopting a humanitarian approach, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not reopening the merits of the original disqualification. Instead, it allowed the doctor and his father to submit an unconditional apology along with a request to expunge the adverse remarks from the MBBS degree. The bench urged the medical college to consider the plea sympathetically and preferably decide the matter within one month.
Concluding the proceedings, the Court observed that both the father and son had “suffered enough” due to the incident and prolonged litigation. Emphasising proportionality in punishment, the bench disposed of the matter, expressing hope that compassion would prevail over rigid technicalities in safeguarding the future of a young doctor.
