Statutory appeal cannot be bypassed under Writ Jurisdiction despite alleged jurisdictional errors or procedural defects

The petitioner, a medical practitioner, challenged an order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Ethics, Disciplinary and Registration Committee of the Uttarakhand State Medical Council in Complaint No. 295/319 of 2025.

The impugned order cancelled the petitioner’s registration and suspended him from practicing in any medical establishment for two months.

The petitioner argued that the Committee exceeded its jurisdiction, as under Rule 7(2)(e) of the Uttaranchal Medical Council Rules, 2004, the Committee only possesses recommendatory powers and cannot independently impose penalties.

Conversely, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order of the State Medical Council’s Committee when a statutory right of appeal exists under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

2. Whether the alleged jurisdictional error and the "recommendatory" nature of the Committee's power under the 2004 Rules justify bypassing the statutory appellate process.

The Court primarily applied Section 30(3) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which mandates that a medical practitioner aggrieved by any action of a State Medical Council may prefer an appeal to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (National Medical Commission).

The court also considered Rule 7(2)(e) of the Uttaranchal Medical Council Rules, 2004, which outlines the disciplinary committee’s power to recommend actions to the State Medical Council.

Finally, the court applied the judicial principle of "exhaustion of alternative remedies," which dictates that Constitutional Courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory remedy is available.

The Court examined the petitioner’s contention that the Committee acted ultra vires by imposing a penalty instead of making a recommendation.

While the Court acknowledged that the defect in the impugned order appeared "glaring," it reasoned that such legal and jurisdictional arguments could be adequately addressed by the appellate authority—the Ethics and Medical Registration Board—under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

The Court determined that the mere presence of a legal error does not permit the High Court to bypass the specific hierarchy and specialized adjudicatory mechanism established by Parliament.

Consequently, since the Act provides a clear path for appeal, the petitioner cannot be deemed "remediless."

It held that the petitioner must approach the Ethics and Medical Registration Board under Section 30(3) of the Act, 2019 for relief.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to raise all arguments, including the jurisdictional challenge regarding recommendatory powers, before the appellate authority.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.