In a remarkable reaffirmation of judicial independence and adherence to the rule of law, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in M/s Cethar Hospital v. Principal Secretary to Government & Ors., held that courts must act strictly according to law and not yield to public pressure or media-driven outrage. The judgment, authored by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, restored the transplantation license of Cethar Hospital, which had been cancelled by the Tamil Nadu health authorities following allegations linked to a kidney racket scandal.
The case underscores two fundamental principles: (1) administrative authorities must comply with procedural safeguards enshrined in law before taking punitive actions, and (2) the judiciary must remain immune to public sentiment or media trials when dispensing justice.
Background of the Case
Cethar Hospital, a division of Cethar Health Care Service (P) Ltd., located in Tiruchirappalli, was a licensed institution authorised to perform liver and kidney transplantations under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (“THOTA”).
In July 2025, the hospital’s transplantation license was temporarily suspended, followed by a permanent cancellation in August 2025. These actions were taken by the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services amid widespread media coverage of an alleged kidney racket in Tamil Nadu.
Contesting the orders dated 23.07.2025 and 18.08.2025, the hospital filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders as being violative of due process and natural justice.
Petitioner’s Contention
The hospital, represented by Senior Advocate V. Ramesh, argued that:
- The statutory procedure under Section 16 of THOTA had been blatantly violated, as no show-cause notice or personal hearing was granted prior to the cancellation.
- The authorities acted arbitrarily and without recording any reasons for invoking the public interest exception that permits suspension without notice.
- The penalty imposed was excessive, disproportionate, and based on unverified allegations amplified by media reports rather than on substantive evidence.
The petitioner also clarified that although an appeal under Section 17 of the Act had been filed before the State Government, the egregious violation of statutory provisions warranted direct judicial intervention.
Respondents’ Submission
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Ajmal Khan, objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that:
- The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Government and could not simultaneously pursue a writ petition, relying on the precedent in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 1.
- A similar case involving another hospital, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Hospital, had been dealt with identically, and the High Court had directed the party to pursue statutory remedies.
- Given the public outrage and media attention, any judicial intervention might be perceived negatively, especially when the issue had “rocked the entire State.”
The State urged the Court to refrain from interfering and to dismiss the petition on grounds of maintainability and public interest.
Key Legal Provision: Section 16 of THOTA
Justice Swaminathan meticulously examined Section 16 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, which governs the suspension and cancellation of a hospital’s registration. The section stipulates:
“The Appropriate Authority may, suo motu or on complaint, issue a notice to any hospital to show cause why its registration under this Act should not be suspended or cancelled… If, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard… the Authority is satisfied that there has been a breach, it may suspend or cancel registration.”
The proviso allows suspension without notice only if it is “necessary or expedient in public interest” and the reasons for doing so are recorded in writing.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Swaminathan offered a detailed and structured interpretation of Section 16, emphasising procedural fairness as a cornerstone of administrative action. His key conclusions included:
- Power of Suspension and Cancellation: The authority that grants the license also possesses the power to suspend or cancel it, but only by following the statutory process.
- Two Types of Suspension: Suspension may be either (a) punitive, after due hearing, or (b) interim, pending inquiry. In both cases, reasons must be clearly recorded.
- Mandatory Nature of Notice: The term “may issue a notice” in Section 16(1) must be read as “shall issue a notice,” since the statute explicitly demands a “reasonable opportunity of being heard” in sub-section (2).
- Personal Hearing Requirement: A personal hearing is essential—“It cannot be mere issuance of notice and obtaining response; it connotes holding an enquiry.”
- Violation of Natural Justice: The authority failed to provide notice, hearing, or access to the material relied upon, rendering the cancellation order “a case of rank illegality.”
- Quashing of the Order: The cancellation order was therefore quashed for non-compliance with Section 16 and the principles of natural justice.
On Maintainability of the Writ Petition
While addressing the maintainability objection, the Court referred to S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 166, which held that the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 if a gross violation of law is apparent.
Justice Swaminathan allowed the petitioner to elect to withdraw the statutory appeal and pursue the writ remedy exclusively, noting that:
- The existence of an appeal does not oust the Court’s jurisdiction.
- The State’s identical handling of a similar appeal indicated futility.
- The issue involved a “gross breach of statutory procedure,” warranting direct judicial review.
Judicial Independence and Public Pressure
The most striking aspect of this judgment is Justice Swaminathan’s strong rebuke of attempts to influence the judiciary through media narratives and public sentiment. Responding to the State’s caution about possible backlash, he stated:
“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 what the people will think. They are answerable only to their conscience.”
He also quoted Justice Abhay S. Oka’s recent observation that “Judges should be prepared to deliver judgments which are not liked by the popular majority… Morality for judges lies in applying one’s mind to law and Constitution.”
The Court further remarked that although the hospital might appear condemned in the eyes of the public, “I won’t crucify without following due process.” This categorical statement reinforced the judiciary’s obligation to safeguard procedural justice, even in highly sensitive or scandalous cases.
Final Order
The High Court:
- Quashed the order dated 18.08.2025, cancelling Cethar Hospital’s license.
- Declared that the earlier suspension order would not revive, as it had merged with the cancellation.
- Clarified that the authority was free to proceed afresh “in accordance with law.”
- Allowed the writ petition without costs, closing connected miscellaneous petitions.
Conclusion
Madras High Court’s ruling in the Cethar Hospital case serves as a compelling reminder that justice must be guided by law, not by noise. At a time when media-driven narratives often dominate public discourse, this judgment reinstates faith in constitutional governance and judicial integrity.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s words resonate as both a legal and moral compass: “I won’t crucify without following due process.”
The decision not only restores a hospital’s right to operate but also reinforces the judiciary’s constitutional duty to uphold fairness, legality, and courage in the face of public pressure — an indispensable hallmark of a truly independent judiciary.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams