Mumbai: “The legitimacy of public authority ultimately rests not upon the power to command, but upon the obligation to remain within the bounds of law and serve the nation. It is this distinction that must remain inviolable in a constitutional democracy,” said Supreme Court in its reasoned order setting aside the Bombay HC order granting bail to corporator Ramesh Mhatre, accused of attacking a doctor.SC gave Mhatre time till Oct 5 to surrender and set a six-month deadline to complete the trial.Police arrested Mhatre on July 8 for allegedly slapping and punching a doctor and assaulting a resident medical officer in a civic-run hospital in Dombivli. A local court granted him bail on July 14, while he was in a hospital. He was released, but on July 18 the HC acting Chief Justice RV Ghuge-led bench took up the matter suo motu and stayed the bail order for all four. The HC had directed Mhatre to surrender by July 19, which he did.An SC bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that an elected office carries with it a corresponding obligation to respect the rule of law and the institutions through which grievances are to be addressed. “The authority derived from the electoral mandate cannot be permitted to become a substitute for the authority of law,” the bench said, observing that “Few responsibilities in a civilised society are as profound as that entrusted to a doctor.”“The special place accorded to the medical profession flows from the very nature of the service it renders to humanity. It concerns human life, human dignity and the alleviation of human suffering,” said SC, adding that a doctor needs to use not just “knowledge and technical competence, but also sound judgement, patience, composure and compassion. The responsibility is consequently of a character that extends beyond the mere provision of a professional service.”SC said “attacks on doctors must necessarily be examined on its own facts” but the “recurrence of allegations involving elected representatives assuming, or seeking to assume, authority beyond that conferred by law is a matter which cannot be viewed with indifference.”The judgment authored by Justice Mehta said, “A grievance, however genuine, does not confer a licence to resort to violence. To permit such conduct would not merely imperil the individual doctor. It would undermine the very conditions in which medical professionals are required to make decisions upon which the life and health of patients may depend. Any patronage to such activities would alter the civil society in one run by outlaws.”
