The Madras High Court emphasised that true judicial morality lies in independence, quoting Justice Abhay Oka’s words while setting aside the cancellation of a hospital’s licence imposed by authorities under alleged public pressure.
The Madras High Court at the Madurai Bench set-aside the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to revoke the liver and kidney transplant license of Cethar Hospital in Tiruchirappalli. The court determined that the authorities had violated the statutory requirements outlined in the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, in ruling in favor of the hospital’s writ petition, noted that the cancellation order issued by the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services on August 18, 2025, was made “in total disregard” of the legally mandated procedures.
The court also acknowledged the broader public controversy surrounding organ transplant practices in Tamil Nadu.
The Additional Advocate General mentioned that the situation had sparked significant political backlash, leading to the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations.
He cautioned that quashing the cancellation order could provoke public disapproval. In a firm response, Justice Swaminathan stated that judges must remain unaffected by public pressure and act solely based on the law.
Asserting that moral duty for judges lies in compliance with the law and the Constitution, rather than in public sentiment, the judge emphasized,
“In popular perception, the hospital might stand condemned. But I won’t crucify without following due process,”
He referenced Supreme Court Justice Abhay S. Oka’s recent statement that,
“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.”
Cethar Hospital, which is licensed to conduct liver and kidney transplants, had first experienced a temporary license suspension on July 23, 2025, followed by the final cancellation less than a month later. The hospital argued that the orders in question were arbitrary and violated Section 16 of the 1994 Act, which mandates prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing before such punitive measures are taken.
In defending the government’s position, the State claimed that the writ petition was not valid since the hospital had already filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act.
Additional Advocate General Ajmal Khan urged the court to follow the approach taken in a previous case involving Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Hospital, where the court directed the hospital to pursue the statutory appeal instead of approaching the High Court.
However, Justice Swaminathan dismissed this argument, citing the Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling in S.J.S. Business Enterprises v. State of Bihar, which established that a petitioner could choose to forgo one remedy in favor of another.
The judge noted that while a petitioner cannot pursue two remedies simultaneously, they have the right to seek the writ remedy exclusively.
He highlighted that a hospital’s reputation and right to operate cannot be compromised without a fair hearing, ruling that the statutory process under Section 16 was “completely ignored” and that the cancellation order constituted a “rank illegality.”
Consequently, the High Court nullified the order revoking Cethar Hospital’s license. The previous suspension, having merged with the cancellation, was not reinstated, but the authorities were permitted to initiate new proceedings in accordance with the law.
Case Title: M/s.Cethar Hospital vs. The Principal Secretary to the Government,Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others