Judges Must Uphold Law Without Fear of Public Backlash, Madras High Court Observes While Restoring Organ Transplant Licence of Hospital Allegedly Involved in Kidney Racket
Isabella Mariam
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan set aside an order of the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services that had cancelled the licence of a Tiruchirappalli-based hospital to conduct organ transplantations, following allegations of its involvement in a kidney racket. The Court held that the cancellation was invalid as it was made without adhering to the procedure under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, including the requirement of notice and hearing. When the State’s counsel cautioned that the public might perceive the decision unfavourably, Justice Swaminathan observed that judges should remain insulated to such probabilities and judges are bound by their oath to uphold the law and must remain unaffected by public opinion while ensuring adherence to due process.
The petitioner, M/s. Cethar Hospital, a hospital licensed to conduct liver and kidney transplantations, challenged two orders issued by the second respondent. On 23.07.2025, the respondent temporarily suspended the hospital’s registration, and on 18.08.2025, the license was permanently cancelled. The petitioner sought to quash both orders.
The petitioner contended that the cancellation was illegal as the authority failed to comply with Section 16 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, specifically the requirement of issuing a show-cause notice and granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was asserted that no personal hearing, enquiry, or supply of materials relied upon by the authority was provided.
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. Respondents also stated that similar action was taken against another hospital, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Hospital, and that the High Court, in that matter, directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The respondents further argued that the matter had statewide repercussions, noting that the Division Bench had ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team.
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 16, distinguishing between punitive suspension and interim suspension pending cancellation, and reiterated that cancellation requires “reasonable opportunity of being heard,” which includes a personal enquiry. The Court found that the cancellation order was passed without adhering to the statutory procedure. The Court also addressed maintainability, noting that the petitioner could elect to pursue one remedy and relied on S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar to hold the writ maintainable despite the appeal.
The Court recorded that Section 16(1) enables the Appropriate Authority to “issue a notice … to show cause why its registration… should not be suspended or cancelled,” and that Section 16(2) mandates that “after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard… the Appropriate Authority may suspend or cancel registration.”
The Court stated that suspension under the Act may occur either “by way of punishment or… during the pendency of the proceedings for cancellation,” and held that notice is mandatory where suspension is punitive. The Court recorded that where suspension is used pending cancellation, notice may be dispensed with only if “it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest” and reasons are recorded.
The Court observed that “Registration can be suspended by way of punishment or cancelled only after the licensee… is given reasonable opportunity of being heard. It implies granting personal hearing. It cannot be mere issuance of notice and obtaining response. It connotes holding an enquiry.” The Court further stated that because the hospital’s reputation and right to carry on business were involved, “proper enquiry must be conducted.”
The Court recorded: “A mere look at the order of cancellation is enough to conclude that the statutory procedure has been totally disregarded. It is a case of rank illegality.” It further stated: “No notice was issued. No hearing was given. The materials said to have been gathered… were not furnished to the petitioner.” It held that the authority’s satisfaction regarding breach of statutory provisions “must follow personal hearing.”
Addressing maintainability, the Court quoted extensively from S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd., noting that “the petitioner cannot ride two horses at the same time, the writ Court can give him the option of dismounting from one and ride on the other,” and held that a pending statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction in cases of gross procedural violation. The Court recorded: “In any event, in view of the gross breach of the statutory procedure, I hold that the writ petition is maintainable.”
The Court also commented on public perception concerns raised by the respondents, stating: “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 Court directed that “The impugned order of cancellation stands quashed. The order of suspension will not revive as it has merged with the cancellation order. Appropriate authority is at liberty to act as per law This writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Ramesh, Senior Counsel, for Mr. D. Srinivasaragavan.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. M. Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader.
Case Title: M/s. Cethar Hospital v. Principal Secretary to Government & Others
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No. 30026 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan
