MUMBAI: “The legitimacy of public authority ultimately rests not upon the power to command, but upon the obligation to remain within the bounds of law and serve the nation. It is this distinction that must remain inviolable in a constitutional democracy,” the Supreme Court said in its reasoned order by which it had on Sept 28 set aside the Bombay HC order of bail to Ramesh Mhatre, the 73 year old municipal corporator in the July 6 Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation doctors’ assault case in a Dombivli hospital.The SC order available on Thursday extended the deadline to complete the trial. The HC had set a 3 month deadline to complete the trial for the magistrate in Kalyan.The SC made it six months from the date of presentation of its order and while cancelling Mhatre’s bail in the State’s plea said he is at liberty to apply for it in case of any change of circumstances.The SC noted that assaults on doctors was being reported across states and said, “While each such incident must necessarily be examined on its own facts and in accordance with law, the recurrence of allegations involving elected representatives assuming, or seeking to assume, authority beyond that conferred by law is a matter which cannot be viewed with indifference.”SC bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that an elected office carries with it a corresponding obligation to respect the rule of law and the institutions through which grievances are to be addressed.“The authority derived from the electoral mandate cannot be permitted to become a substitute for the authority of law,” the bench stressed.The state had filed an appeal and through advocate Shreerang Varma argued for cancellation of Mhatre’s bail. Senior counsel Siddharth Dave for Mhtatre had opposed.The SC accepted the State’s plea and disposing it off invoked a verse from the Suśruta Saṃhitā which it said eloquently expressed an enduring truth of how “efficacy of medical care is inseparable from the trust and respect reposed in the doctors and nurses.”“Its literal sense, the verse conveys that a physician does not succeed in a house where he is not respected; where the physician is respected, his treatment succeeds. Though expressed in the language of an ancient medical tradition, the principle underlying the verse retains undiminished relevance even today,” said the 36 page judgment authored by Justice Mehta.“Few responsibilities in a civilised society are as profound as that entrusted to a doctor,” the judgment underscored.“The special place accorded to the medical profession flows from the very nature of the service it renders to humanity. It concerns human life, human dignity and the alleviation of human suffering. A doctor is, therefore, required to bring to the discharge of his or her duties not merely knowledge and technical competence, but also sound judgment, patience, composure and compassion. The responsibility is consequently of a character that extends beyond the mere provision of a professional service.”Police arrested Mhatre on July 8 for allegedly slapping and punching a doctor and assaulting a resident medical officer. A local court granted him bail on July 14, while he was in a hospital.He was released but on July 18 the HC acting chief justice RV Ghuge led bench took up the matter suo motu and staying the bail order for all four, directed Mhatre to surrender. He did on July 19.The HC eventually granted him bail on August 7 and the ACJ had also said, “In a democracy an elected representative is by the people and for the people. If the elected representative is accused of assaulting his own voters, such a situation is bound to dent the fabric of democracy in this country and erode public confidence.’’Before the SC, The maximum sentence under the law is five years’ imprisonment for the main offence in the case and there was no obstruction caused in the trial caused, Mhatre’s counsel also submitted.While acknowledging the concerns raised by the bench, the counsel submitted that as a “criminal case” evidence had to form the basis of the outcome.The SC said, “We direct the Special Fast Track Court, constituted pursuant to the directions of the high court, shall endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, not later than six months from the date of presentation of the present order.”And added, “We also direct the prosecution to carefully assess the list of witnesses proposed to be examined and, wherever permissible in law, to curtail or dispense with the examination of such witnesses whose evidence may not be essential for the just adjudication of the case, so as to ensure that the trial proceeds expeditiously without compromising the fairness of the proceedings.”
