Judges Must Uphold Law, Not Fear Backlash: Madras High Court While Restoring License Of Hospital Allegedly Involved In Kidney Racket

When the Additional Advocate General submitted that the public would not be welcoming of such a development and might view it negatively, Justice GR Swaminathan said that judges should remain insulated to such probabilities. The judge remarked that a judge is on oath to uphold the law and must do that without being bothered about the consequences.

“I feel compelled to make a remark or two regarding the backlash which the learned Additional Advocate General foresees. Judges have to remain insulated to such probabilities. They have taken oath to uphold the law. They cannot be bothered about the consequences. They cannot worry what the people will think. They are answerable only to their conscience,” the judge said.

"In popular perception, the hospital in question might stand condemned. But I won't crucify without following due process" the court added. 

The court was hearing the petition filed by Cethar Hospital against the cancellation of the license to conduct liver and kidney transplantations. In July the license was suspended and in August it was permanently cancelled.

The hospital argued that the authorities had not followed the procedure set out in Section 16 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 and had not issued a show cause notice before ordering cancellation.

The State objected to the plea and argued that it was not maintainable. It was submitted that the hospital had already filed an appeal before the Government under Section 17 of the Act and should not be permitted to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.

It was also pointed out that another Hospital, whose license was cancelled along with that of the petitioner Hospital, had challenged the order before the High Court, and the High Court had directed the hospital to approach the Government. Thus, the State argued that a similar approach should be taken in the present case.

Perusing the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, the court noted that suspension of the license can be done in two circumstances. The court noted that the suspension may be by way of punishment or it can be during the pendency of proceedings for cancellation. The court added that while notice was compulsory in the former, it was not mandatory in the latter.

The court noted that when the authority intended to cancel the registration and was of the opinion that no operations should be carried out in the meantime, it could order suspension. However, in such cases, the reasons must be recorded in writing and issuance of notice can be suspended only by recording of reasons contemplated under the proviso to Section 16(2) of the Act. The court also noted that the appropriate authority could cancel the registration only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the hospital to be heard.

In the present case, the court noted that the authorities had not followed the due procedure and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. The court stressed that when the law prescribes a procedure, it must be followed. The court noted that the authorities had failed to issue notice, did not give a hearing, and did not furnish materials. Noting that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, the court was inclined to set aside the order of cancellation.

The court thus quashed the cancellation order. The court however, gave liberty to the authorities to act as per law.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Ramesh, Senior counsel, for Mr. D. Srinivasaragavan.

Counsel for Respondnets: Mr. Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by, Mr. M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader

Case Title: M/s. Cethar Hospital v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

Case No: W.P.(MD) No.30026 of 2025