Delhi High Court - Orders
Shishir Chand vs Medical Council Of India (Mci) & Ors on 16 February, 2026
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 277/2017, CM APPLs. 3225/2026, 3226/2026, 10463/2026
SHISHIR CHAND .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-In Person
versus
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (MCI) & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit
Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava,
Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Vedant Sood,
Mr. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advs. for R-1
Mr. Punit D Tyagi, Adv. along with
Dr. Atul Chhabra, for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 16.02.2026 CM APPL. 3224/2026 (for recall of the order dated 30.08.2017)
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 277/2017.
2. Essentially, the applicant seeks to impugn the validity/ authenticity of the degree of the respondent no.2 with regard to which plethora of criminal complaints have been filed by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.08.2017 reads as under:-
"2. Insofar as prayer no. (iii) is concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant the same. Since the allegation had been made that the doctor in question was not qualified, and certain conflicting reports were stated to have been received by the petitioner in this regard, this Court has examined the said aspect. Respondent no.4 has filed an affidavit which clearly affirms that respondent no.2 had passed his MBBS final exams held in April 1995. Respondent no.4 has also produced a tabular statement, indicating the marks obtained by respondent no.2 (his name features at serial no.3 of the said sheet).
3. Mr T. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has also drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 07.04.2017, passed by This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:35:16 the Central Information Commission whereby respondent No. 1 (hereafter as 'MCI') was directed to procure information about the date of joining and passing out of respondent no.2 from the medical college and provide the same to the petitioner. In compliance with the said order, MCI had written to Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur as well as respondent no. 4. Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur had by a letter dated 20.05.2017, confirmed that respondent no.2 had joined the MBBS course on 05.02.1990 and had passed final MBBS part II examination held in the month of April 1995. This communication was duly forwarded to the petitioner.
4. Respondent no.2 has also produced the original degree dated 16.04.1998 awarded to him, which indicates that respondent no.2 had passed the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery Examination held in the month of April 1995. He has also produced the original certificate of registration of respondent no.2 with the Bihar Council of Medical Registration. It appears that some confusion was caused because the final examination is termed as the final examination 1994, although it was held in April 1995. The same is apparent from the degree issued to respondent no.2. In this view, this Court does not find that there is any reason to further verify the medical qualifications of respondent no.2. The said prayer is, accordingly, rejected."
3. Concededly, the said order was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court by the petitioner/ applicant. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2018 observed as under:-
"This appeal is with respect to the correctness of the learned Single Judge's conclusions that the respondent-Medical Council of India's Ethics Committee ought to reconsider the matter afresh on merits. The appellant urges that the findings of negligence have virtually been set aside by the impugned order, which even while noticing the prima facie determination of the Ethics Committee, commented that the review of the penalty of mere suspension from the medical practice for six months was done without following principles of natural justice. The records disclose that the appellant had complained against the respondent doctor, pointedly alleging negligence in the treatment of his brother. The Ethics Committee in the first instance was of the opinion that having regard to the nature of the complaint and the preceding facts, the respondent doctor needed to be warned. Thereafter, in a fresh twist, as it were, the appellant approached the Ethics Committee for enhancement of sentence. After some initial hesitation, the Ethics Committee sought opinion and based upon it decided not to proceed further with regard to any punishment. The learned Single Judge, whom the appellant approached, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:35:16 considered the overall materials before him and was of the opinion that the Ethics Committee in fact ought to reconsider the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the appellant questions the decision of the learned Single Judge firstly contending that when negligence was in fact established and proved, the impugned order setting aside that determination was not valid. It was secondly urged that the respondent doctor's qualifications were put into issue and the learned Single Judge recorded erroneous findings.
This Court has considered the materials which were on the record before the learned Single Judge. The impugned order, after examining the materials, including the relevant orders of the Medical Council of India, in the opinion of this Court correctly surmised that in fact there was no final determination. In these circumstances, the direction to the Ethics Committee to consider the matter afresh is in order and reasonable. As far as the second aspect is concerned, this Court finds no infirmity with the learned Single Judge's findings with regard to the genuineness of the qualifications held by the second respondent doctor in this place. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed along with the pending applications.
4. The SLP filed against the aforesaid order in Supreme Court, as well as the Review Petition filed thereafter, have been dismissed. The petitioner seeks to contend that subsequent material has been uncovered by the petitioner which casts a serious doubt on the degree of the respondent no.2, and also as to whether the respondent no.2 possess the minimum educational qualification required for obtaining admission in MBBS course.
5. Reliance is sought to be placed on response to the RTI application filed by the petitioner before the DGHS and on subsequent orders passed in various criminal complaints filed by the petitioner.
6. Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for the MCI reiterates that the MCI had written to the concerned college viz., Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur as well as respondent no.4, Ranchi University and in response, obtained a confirmation that the respondent no.2 had joined the MBBS course on 05.02.1990 and had passed final MBBS part II This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:35:16 examination held in the month of April, 1995. It is submitted that in light thereof, there is no occasion for MCI to further examine the matter as the same is beyond the remit of MCI.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances and specially taking note of the fact that an appeal against the said order dated 30.08.2017 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and subsequent SLP filed by the petitioner/ applicant was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, no ground is made out to recall the order dated 30.08.2017.
8. However, the applicant insists that subsequent material has been uncovered, on the basis of which, various subsequent criminal complaints have been filed which casts a serious doubt as to the qualification/s of the respondent no.2. Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the same in accordance with law. In these proceedings, this Court is not commenting on the merits or demerits thereof. Suffice it to say, however, that the same does not afford any valid justification for recall of the order dated 30.08.2017.
9. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
SACHIN DATTA, J FEBRUARY 16, 2026/uk This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:35:16