The Supreme Court recently observed that doctors cannot reasonably be expected to exercise sound and independent professional judgment while facing the apprehension of physical violence, intimidation or coercion, emphasising that the safety and dignity of medical professionals are safeguards necessary for the proper delivery of healthcare.

The Court further observed that grievances over medical treatment, however genuine, cannot justify resorting to violence. It emphasised that allowing such conduct would undermine the conditions in which medical professionals are required to make decisions concerning the lives and health of patients.

The Court highlighted that a doctor's responsibility extends beyond providing a professional service, as patients place their health and, in serious cases, their lives in the doctor's hands. The doctor-patient relationship is founded on trust, confidence and reassurance, it noted.

Highlighting the demands of medical practice, particularly in hospitals and emergencies, the Court observed that doctors are often required to assess patients and make critical decisions within moments, sometimes without complete information. Such decisions require them to remain composed, focused and free to exercise independent professional judgment.

“An environment conducive to the discharge of such a responsibility is, therefore, not a matter of convenience for the medical professional. It is a condition necessary for the proper delivery of medical care. A doctor cannot reasonably be expected to exercise sound and independent judgment while labouring under the apprehension of physical violence, intimidation or coercion. The safety and dignity of the medical professional are consequently not matters of personal privilege. They are the safeguards which serve the larger public interest in ensuring that medical care is rendered with the concentration, composure and judgment that the profession demands,” the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made these observations while cancelling the bail granted to Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation corporator Ramesh Mhatre and three others accused of assaulting doctors and medical staff at Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital in Dombivli, Maharashtra, in July this year.

The Court held that the Bombay High Court had failed to consider material circumstances, including the criminal antecedents attributed to Mhatre, the influence wielded by him and the impact of the alleged assault on the medical fraternity, while restoring the accused persons' bail.

It directed Mhatre and the three co-accused to surrender before the trial court by October 5, 2026. The Court, however, clarified that they would be at liberty to renew their bail applications in the event of a material change in circumstances.

The Supreme Court also directed the State Government to independently examine whether the provisions of applicable preventive detention laws were attracted in the case.

The case arose from an alleged assault on three doctors, including a woman doctor, at Shastri Nagar Municipal Hospital in Dombivli on July 6, 2026. According to the prosecution, Ramesh Mhatre along with three others assaulted and abused the doctors following a dispute over shifting a pregnant woman in labour. An FIR was registered the next day under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Maharashtra Medicare Act.

A Magistrate granted bail to Mhatre on July 14 and to the three co-accused on July 17. Following public concern over the incident, the Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance and stayed the bail orders, directing Mhatre to surrender. However, on August 7, it restored their bail, imposing conditions including residing outside Maharashtra until commencement of trial and refraining from contacting witnesses. The State challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

Assault On Doctors Created Fear Among Medical Fraternity: SC

The Supreme Court took note of the impact of the alleged incident on the medical fraternity. It highlighted that the woman doctor had suffered trauma, ignominy and insecurity and had resigned from service, while the other victim doctors had refrained from attending to their duties due to fear and apprehension.

The Court held that these circumstances were directly relevant to the assessment of the possibility of intimidation or interference with witnesses and the ability of medical professionals to discharge their duties without fear.

It also referred to a subsequent alleged incident of assault and intimidation of doctors and hospital staff at a hospital in Palghar, Maharashtra, involving persons belonging to the same political organisation as Mhatre.

While noting that the Palghar incident constituted an independent cause of action, the Court said that it further reinforced the apprehension of insecurity prevailing among medical professionals.

“Any attempt to intimidate or assault medical professionals, while discharging duties entrusted to them in the interest of public health, cannot be tolerated, much less at the hands of persons holding elected office or for that matter any other person,” the Court observed.

It added that an elected representative had a heightened responsibility to uphold the authority of law and reinforce public confidence in public institutions. Resorting to violence against medical professionals while holding elected office is particularly grave, as it undermines both their safety and the responsibility attached to public office, the Court emphasised.

The Court clarified that its observations did not grant medical professionals any immunity from scrutiny or accountability and emphasised that patients and their families are entitled to question medical treatment, complain of negligence or delay, seek investigations into adverse outcomes and pursue remedies available under law.

However, such grievances cannot be addressed through threats, violence or coercion, the Court stated.

“A grievance, however genuine, does not confer a licence to resort to violence. To permit such conduct would not merely imperil the individual doctor. It would undermine the very conditions in which medical professionals are required to make decisions upon which the life and health of patients may depend. Any patronage to such activities would alter the civil society in one run by outlaws”, the Court emphasised.

High Court Failed To Explain Its Change Of View On Bail: SC

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had adopted conflicting approaches in its orders of July 18 and August 7. It noted that the High Court had initially stayed the bail orders after finding prima facie grounds to do so, considering the nature of the allegations and the assault on doctors while they were discharging their duties.

However, while subsequently restoring bail, the High Court relied on the period of custody undergone, progress in the investigation, anticipated completion of forensic analysis and the accused's proposed residences outside Maharashtra.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to identify any intervening circumstances justifying its departure from the earlier view.

“The mere passage of time in custody, progress in investigation or the anticipated completion of forensic analysis, without anything further, does not explain how the circumstances which had earlier weighed with the High Court had ceased to operate or had otherwise lost their significance,” the Court observed.

HC Should Have Considered Criminal Antecedents and Influence of Elected Representative: SC

The Supreme Court held that Mhatre's criminal antecedents were a material consideration in deciding bail. It noted that 18 criminal cases had been registered against him, including those involving offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. Although 16 cases ended in acquittal or discharge, the Court said his antecedents and the possibility of influencing proceedings could not be overlooked, particularly when material witnesses were yet to testify.

The Court also noted that Mhatre had remained admitted in the prison ward of Thane Civil Hospital during his police and judicial custody and sought discharge immediately after the release memo was issued. This raised concerns about whether he had used the influence attached to his position to circumvent the custodial process, the Court said.

Observing that criminal antecedents, the possibility of interfering with justice and the likelihood of repeating criminal conduct were relevant bail considerations, the Court held that the other three accused could not rely on parity with Mhatre to retain bail, once the basis for granting him bail was found unsustainable.

Ultimately, the Court cancelled the bail granted to Mhatre and the other accused.