In a significant legal development, the Calcutta High Court on Monday dismissed the West Bengal Medical Council’s (WBMC) order that had suspended the medical licence of Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Santanu Sen. The verdict comes as a major relief for Sen, who had challenged the council’s decision on grounds of procedural lapses and political vendetta.
Background Of The Case
Dr. Santanu Sen, a practising physician and a prominent TMC leader, faced disciplinary action from the WBMC last year after an incident in Parliament where he snatched and tore papers from Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw during a heated debate. Following this, the council suspended his medical registration for three months, citing conduct unbecoming of a doctor and violation of ethical standards.
However, Sen approached the Calcutta High Court arguing that:
- The incident occurred in his capacity as an MP, not while discharging professional medical duties.
- The council’s disciplinary committee did not adhere to principles of natural justice, including giving him a fair hearing before pronouncing suspension.
- The move was politically motivated, aimed at tarnishing his image ahead of the Lok Sabha and state municipal elections.
Key Highlights Of The Court Verdict
Justice Amrita Sinha, delivering the judgment, observed:
- Professional vs. Political Conduct: Actions undertaken by a registered medical practitioner in their political or legislative capacity cannot automatically be brought under professional misconduct unless they directly violate provisions of medical practice or patient safety.
- Lack Of Proper Hearing: The court noted that Dr. Sen was not given adequate opportunity to present his defence before the council’s disciplinary committee issued the suspension order.
- Jurisdictional Limits: The WBMC overstepped its jurisdiction by taking cognisance of a parliamentary incident that had no direct nexus with Sen’s medical practice.
- Suspension Order Dismissed: The High Court quashed the suspension order and directed the council to expunge all related adverse entries from its records.
Reactions From Key Stakeholders
| Person/Entity | Reaction |
|---|---|
| Dr. Santanu Sen (TMC MP) | “Truth has prevailed. This was a politically driven attempt to silence my voice in Parliament and malign me as a doctor.” |
| Trinamool Congress Spokesperson | “We welcome the court’s decision. It proves how institutions were being misused to target opposition leaders.” |
| West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) | Officials declined to comment immediately but indicated they would consult legal advisors before deciding on a possible appeal. |
| BJP Bengal Unit | “It is unfortunate that a person who insulted parliamentary dignity escapes professional accountability. We respect the judiciary but disagree with the broader principle.” |
Legal Perspectives
Senior constitutional lawyer Sukumar Basu stated:
“Professional regulatory bodies like medical councils must limit their disciplinary jurisdiction to issues directly affecting professional competence, patient safety, or public health ethics. Political misconduct is adjudicated by parliamentary ethics committees and voters.”
He further noted that while the council’s code of conduct does include ‘conduct unbecoming of a doctor’, the application must remain confined to medical ethics, not general public behaviour.
Political Ramifications
The ruling is being viewed as a setback for opposition parties, particularly BJP, which had criticised TMC for not taking internal disciplinary action against Sen post the parliamentary ruckus. TMC leaders believe the verdict will:
- Strengthen Dr. Sen’s position within the party’s medical cell and parliamentary wing.
- Reinvigorate TMC’s narrative of “misuse of statutory bodies against opposition leaders”.
- Provide an additional talking point ahead of upcoming bypolls in Bengal.
The Parliamentary Incident Recap
The controversy arose in 2021 when Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw was making a statement in Rajya Sabha on the Pegasus snooping allegations. Dr. Sen walked up to him, snatched his papers, and tore them before throwing the fragments towards the Deputy Chairman’s podium. This action led to his suspension from Rajya Sabha for the remaining monsoon session that year.
While parliamentary ethics committees deliberated on the matter, WBMC initiated independent disciplinary proceedings under Section 25 of the Medical Practitioners’ Act, leading to the now-dismissed suspension.
Expert Opinions On Medical Ethics Jurisdiction
| Expert | Opinion |
|---|---|
| Dr. Soma Roy, Medical Ethics Professor | “Doctors are bound by professional codes even outside clinics. However, unless an act directly compromises patient welfare or violates public health ethics, councils should exercise caution in extending jurisdiction.” |
| Advocate Ranadeep Gupta | “This verdict clarifies the constitutional limits of statutory councils. Political misconduct must be addressed by political or legislative bodies, not professional regulators.” |
Potential Next Steps For WBMC
- The council may file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before a division bench of the High Court if advised legally.
- It may also consider revising its internal code of conduct framework to clearly demarcate jurisdiction over professional versus personal or political conduct.
Impact On Dr. Sen’s Political Career
The dismissal of the suspension enhances Dr. Sen’s credibility ahead of TMC’s candidate finalisation for upcoming Rajya Sabha nominations. Party insiders suggest he may now be entrusted with greater responsibilities in health outreach programmes under Mamata Banerjee’s flagship Swasthya Sathi scheme.
Public Reaction
The medical fraternity remains divided. While many doctors feel professional ethics should be upheld strictly, a sizeable section argues against councils overreaching into unrelated personal or political domains.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court verdict has set a critical precedent on the scope of professional regulatory bodies’ disciplinary powers vis-à-vis political conduct. As Dr. Santanu Sen resumes his medical practice without restrictions, the ruling underscores the need for clear separation between political accountability and professional regulation within a democratic framework.
Disclaimer: This news article is based on official court orders, legal expert commentary, and public statements as of July 2025. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to refer to detailed court judgments for specific legal interpretations.