The Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with an ongoing inquiry into allegations that government doctors at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College (MLNMC), Prayagraj, were engaged in private practice despite service rules prohibiting such activities. Observing that the matter involved larger public interest concerns relating to the functioning of public healthcare institutions, the Court declined to grant relief to a doctor challenging the inquiry.
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter on June 22, 2026, in the case of Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others. The petitioner, Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh, an Associate Professor in the Department of Surgery at MLN Medical College, had challenged an order passed by the Allahabad High Court directing a high-level inquiry into allegations of private practice by government-employed doctors.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court indicated that it was not inclined to interfere with the inquiry. Following the Court's observations, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition (SLP), which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Bench underscored that the issue extended beyond an individual grievance and concerned broader questions of accountability within the public healthcare system.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that:
"Government doctors should not indulge in private practice."
The Court noted that the inquiry was not directed against a single doctor but was intended to examine allegations concerning multiple government doctors who were reportedly engaged in private medical activities while holding public positions. The Bench treated the issue as one involving significant public interest and therefore declined to interfere with the investigation ordered by the Allahabad High Court.
Government doctors in several states are subject to service rules that restrict or prohibit private practice, though policies may differ across states and institutions. Such restrictions are intended to ensure that doctors employed in public healthcare systems devote their professional services to government hospitals and medical colleges.
Justice Nagarathna observed that the Allahabad High Court was dealing with an issue of broader public significance rather than an individual dispute. Emphasizing the importance of the matter, she remarked, "The cause is very good. Because government doctors should not do and you are also a doctor."
According to a report by Live Law, Justice Nagarathna further clarified that the proceedings were not aimed at the petitioner personally but were focused on allegations concerning private practice by government doctors. She stated, "There is nothing personal against you. It is for all doctors who are indulging in private practice."
The controversy originated from proceedings before the Allahabad High Court relating to the functioning of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College and its affiliated Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
On May 29, 2026, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into allegations that professors, associate professors, and lecturers at the government medical college were engaged in private practice despite statutory restrictions.
The High Court ordered the formation of a high-level committee comprising:
Principal Secretary, Medical Education
Principal Secretary, Health
Director General, Medical Education
The committee was tasked with examining allegations of unauthorized private practice and related irregularities involving government doctors.
In its observations, the Allahabad High Court expressed serious concern over what it described as the emergence of a "parallel medical industry" allegedly being operated by government doctors in Prayagraj.
According to the court, allegations suggested that some doctors employed by the government were either directly operating private nursing homes or running them through family members and associates. The Court also took note of claims that patients visiting government healthcare facilities were being referred to private establishments for treatment and surgical procedures.
The High Court observed that such practices, if proven, could undermine public confidence in government healthcare institutions and adversely affect patients who depend on public hospitals for affordable medical care.
The original proceedings before the High Court were linked to concerns regarding the functioning of Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital and public grievances relating to healthcare delivery.
While examining the matter, the Court observed that the deteriorating condition of public healthcare services could not be attributed solely to shortages of funds, infrastructure, or government support. It remarked that healthcare professionals serving in government institutions also carried responsibility for ensuring that public healthcare objectives were fulfilled.
The Court's observations reflected concerns that the diversion of patients to private facilities could compromise both healthcare accessibility and the effective utilization of public medical infrastructure.
The issue gained further attention after the High Court was informed about a First Information Report (FIR) registered against an associate professor of the medical college and his wife.
According to court records, allegations suggested that the doctor was involved in operating a private nursing home while serving in a government institution. The High Court also noted that despite previous directions issued to the District Magistrate of Prayagraj to investigate allegations of private practice by faculty members, no meaningful progress report had been submitted.
This prompted the Court to seek stronger administrative action and direct a more structured inquiry through senior government officials.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel appearing for Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh argued that the High Court's observations were influenced by an FIR arising from a personal dispute and that the petitioner had been adversely affected despite not being a party to the original writ proceedings.
The petitioner also contended that the inquiry order impacted his interests without providing him an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Bench ultimately declined to interfere, observing that the inquiry involved wider questions concerning public healthcare and adherence to service rules governing government doctors. Following these observations, the petitioner withdrew the SLP, which was dismissed as withdrawn.
(Rh/ARC)