Renewal fee: HC orders KMC not to cancel doctors' registration

 The high court on Wednesday directed the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) not to cancel the registration of doctors in the state for non-payment of renewal fee or even non-submission of the renewal application.

The court, however, allowed the KMC to take action in any other issue pertaining to the renewal.

The petitioners had sought direction to quash section 19 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961 as amended by sub-section (2) of section 11. Under this section, the KMC mandated the registered medical practitioners to produce a certificate for having attended a Continuing Medical Education programme for not less than 100 hours conducted by an organisation or institution recognised by the Medical Council of India.

Justice A S Bopanna passed the interim order after hearing the petition filed by 23 medical practioners from different parts of the state.

The court ordered issuance of notice to principal secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, KMC and Medical Council of India. The petition sought quashing of the approval by the principal secretary for the KMC’s proposal of renewal fee of Rs 1,000 on or before December 31 every year. The petition also challenged collecting biometric data of doctors. The petitioners claimed that even in Aadhaar scheme, finger print and iris scan were optional.

Police transfers

The high court on Wednesday asked the petitioner, who had sought a probe against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah for writing recommendation letters to the Police Establishment Board on police transfers, to approach the Lokayukta.

The petitioner V Shashidhar had approached the high Court after the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) closed his complaint. The ACB had closed the complaint stating that the police transfer was an administrative issue.

Shashidhar had approached the high court seeking a direction for probe against Siddaramaiah. Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri disposed of the petition directing Shashidhar to approach the Lokayukta. The court stated the petition did not come under the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution.