“Judges Must Not Be Swayed By Popular Opinion”: Madras HC Invokes Justice Oka’s Remarks While Quashing Hospital License Cancellation [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court at the Madurai Bench has set aside the Tamil Nadu government’s cancellation of liver and kidney transplant licenses for Cethar Hospital, ruling that authorities committed “rank illegality” by disregarding mandatory procedural safeguards under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan, in an order dated November 3, 2025, addressed Writ Petition (MD) No. 30026 of 2025 filed by Cethar Hospital challenging orders dated July 23, 2025, and August 18, 2025, which first temporarily suspended and then permanently cancelled the hospital’s transplant registration.

Senior Counsel V. Ramesh, representing the petitioner, argued that the impugned orders violated Section 16 of the Act by failing to issue a show cause notice or provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancellation.

The Additional Advocate General Ajmal Khan contended that the petition was not maintainable since the hospital had already filed statutory appeals before the government, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling against pursuing parallel remedies simultaneously. He referenced a similar case involving Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Hospital where the Principal Seat had relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy.

The government’s counsel also emphasized the matter’s public sensitivity, noting that media coverage had generated significant public attention and that a Division Bench had constituted a special investigation team to probe the allegations. He cautioned that setting aside the orders might be viewed negatively by the public.

After examining Section 16 of the Act, Justice Swaminathan delineated its scope, concluding that registration cancellation requires strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. The Court held that while suspension without notice is permissible during the pendency of cancellation proceedings if public interest demands and reasons are recorded, permanent cancellation mandates proper inquiry with personal hearing.

In a strongly worded rebuke of the administrative action, the Court declared, “The said procedure has been given a complete go by. The respondent authority did not adhere to the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the provision.”

The judgment emphasized, “No notice was issued. No hearing was given. The materials said to have been gathered by the authority were not furnished to the petitioner. The satisfaction of the authority that there was a breach of statutory provisions by the registrant must follow personal hearing.”

Characterizing the violation, Justice Swaminathan stated, “It is a case of rank illegality. When law prescribes adopting a particular and specified procedure, it must be followed. The case may pertain to transplantation, but the authority cannot transplant or supplant its own procedure.”

On the maintainability objection, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, holding that although parallel remedies should not ordinarily be pursued simultaneously, courts may allow parties to elect their preferred forum, particularly when alternative remedies prove inadequate.

Addressing concerns about public perception, Justice Swaminathan made a powerful observation on judicial independence, stating, “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 about what people will think. They are answerable only to their conscience.”

Quoting Justice Abhay S. Oka’s recent remarks, the Court emphasized, “Judges should be prepared to deliver judgments which are not liked by the popular majority… The basic rule is that the Judges should not be swayed by popular opinion, and that is the concept of morality for Judges.”

In a pointed conclusion reflecting judicial duty, Justice Swaminathan observed, “In popular perception, the hospital in question might stand condemned. But I won’t crucify without following due process.”

While quashing the cancellation order, the Court clarified that authorities remain at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, ensuring proper procedural compliance including notice, opportunity for hearing, and reasoned satisfaction based on evidence presented during inquiry.

The judgment underscores that even in cases involving serious public health concerns and media scrutiny, administrative authorities must strictly comply with statutory procedures and principles of natural justice before imposing penalties that affect the fundamental right to carry on business and professional reputation.

Case Title: M/s. Cethar Hospital vs. The Principal Secretary to Government & Ors.

[Read Order]