FAZLUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition in W. P. No. 12428 of 1998 seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the notice of the second respondent dated 3-8-1998 purporting to be issued under Rule 1 of Part IV of the Code of Ethics, and to forbear the respondents from in any manner taking penal action against the petitioner. He has also filed W. P. No. 12429 of 1998 seeking to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Rule 1 of Part IV of 'Code of Medical Ethics' of Tamilnadu Medical Counsel as ultra vires the Constitution of India, illegal, inoperative and non est in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

(2.) The petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner acquired degree in medicine. He has also been designated as M.D. and Ph.D. in accupuncture. An article was published in Tamil Health Magazine, 'Family Health' regarding the view of American Doctors who had expressed that children who had been administered with polio vaccine are not totally immune to the said disease but are prone to subsequent attack of the said virus based on their research. In view of the said publication, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 17-10-1997 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. In the said notice it is stated that the said publication amounts to an advertisement for the purpose of obtaining patients or promoting his own professional advantage commending and directing attention of the public to the petitioner's professional skill and knowledge and it is contrary to public interest and discreditable to the medical profession. The petitioner also submitted his explanation. After submitting his explanation, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said Rule prohibits a person's right to speak and so it offends Article 19 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to express his views which right has been guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and so the said Rule should be declared as unconstitutional. He has relied on the decision in (1989) 2 SCC 574 in support of his submission.