<p>The Supreme Court has set aside Calcutta High Court's "unsustainable" orders suspending the licence to practice of a doctor in a contempt petition filed against him for allegedly raising an unauthorised construction.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sanjay Karol said the courts must not be hypersensitive or swung by emotions but must act judiciously, while exercising contempt jurisdiction.</p>.<p>The court revived the licence of appellant Gostho Behari Das after finding "the punishment handed down to the contemnor is entirely foreign to the Contempt of Courts Act” since matters concerning licence to practice medicine is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/discipline-implicit-hallmark-of-armed-forces-sc-upholds-dismissal-of-army-man-for-overstaying-leave-1241951.html">'Discipline implicit hallmark of Armed Forces': SC upholds dismissal of Army man for overstaying leave</a></strong></p>.<p>Under the Contempt of Courts Act, the bench pointed out that the punishment prescribed is simple imprisonment, not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Rs 2,000. </p>.<p>No other punishment can be prescribed to a person guilty of committing contempt of Court, the bench added.</p>.<p>On an appeal filed by Das, the bench said the grant, regulation, and suspension of the licence to practice medicine is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. </p>.<p>"The power to punish a registered medical practitioner for misconduct rests exclusively with the body envisaged under this Act," it said.</p>.<p>The bench said a medical practitioner guilty of contempt of court may also be so for professional misconduct but the same would depend on the gravity/nature of the contemptuous conduct of the person in question. </p>.<p>“They are, however, offences separate and distinct from each other. The former is regulated by the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the latter is under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019," the bench said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has set aside Calcutta High Court's "unsustainable" orders suspending the licence to practice of a doctor in a contempt petition filed against him for allegedly raising an unauthorised construction.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sanjay Karol said the courts must not be hypersensitive or swung by emotions but must act judiciously, while exercising contempt jurisdiction.</p>.<p>The court revived the licence of appellant Gostho Behari Das after finding "the punishment handed down to the contemnor is entirely foreign to the Contempt of Courts Act” since matters concerning licence to practice medicine is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/discipline-implicit-hallmark-of-armed-forces-sc-upholds-dismissal-of-army-man-for-overstaying-leave-1241951.html">'Discipline implicit hallmark of Armed Forces': SC upholds dismissal of Army man for overstaying leave</a></strong></p>.<p>Under the Contempt of Courts Act, the bench pointed out that the punishment prescribed is simple imprisonment, not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Rs 2,000. </p>.<p>No other punishment can be prescribed to a person guilty of committing contempt of Court, the bench added.</p>.<p>On an appeal filed by Das, the bench said the grant, regulation, and suspension of the licence to practice medicine is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. </p>.<p>"The power to punish a registered medical practitioner for misconduct rests exclusively with the body envisaged under this Act," it said.</p>.<p>The bench said a medical practitioner guilty of contempt of court may also be so for professional misconduct but the same would depend on the gravity/nature of the contemptuous conduct of the person in question. </p>.<p>“They are, however, offences separate and distinct from each other. The former is regulated by the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the latter is under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019," the bench said.</p>