Home > Recent Judgements > GOVERNMENT DOCTORS & PRIVATE PRACTICE: SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO INTERFERE WITH PROBE INTO ALLEGED PARALLEL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN PRAYAGRAJ
Jun-23- 2026
GOVERNMENT DOCTORS & PRIVATE PRACTICE: SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO INTERFERE WITH PROBE INTO ALLEGED PARALLEL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN PRAYAGRAJ
Introduction
In a significant development concerning public healthcare accountability, the Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with an order of the Allahabad High Court directing a high-level inquiry into allegations that government doctors attached to Moti Lal Nehru Medical College (MLNMC), Prayagraj, have been engaging in private medical practice despite a statutory prohibition.
The case, Santosh Kumar Singh v. Arvind Gupta & Anr., has brought renewed attention to a longstanding concern in India’s public healthcare system the alleged diversion of government resources, patients, and medical expertise into private healthcare establishments by doctors who are employed full-time in government institutions.
The Supreme Court’s observations indicate that the issue extends beyond individual allegations and concerns the larger public interest, public trust, and integrity of government healthcare services.
Case Title
Santosh Kumar Singh v. Arvind Gupta & Anr.
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
The Supreme Court Proceedings
The matter reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh, an Associate Professor in the Department of Surgery at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College.
Dr. Singh challenged an order of the Allahabad High Court that had directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to initiate a high-level inquiry into allegations of private practice by government doctors attached to the institution.
Appearing for Dr. Singh, Senior Advocate Harshvir Pratap Sharma argued that:
- Dr. Singh was not a party before the High Court.
- The High Court had allegedly relied upon an FIR arising from a personal dispute.
- The observations made against him could prejudice his position.
However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by these submissions.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna emphasized that the proceedings were not directed against any individual doctor but were intended to address a broader public concern involving government doctors allegedly engaging in private practice.
The Court observed:
“The cause is very good. Because government doctors should not do and you are also a doctor.”
The Bench further clarified that the inquiry was not aimed at targeting Dr. Singh personally but was intended to examine systemic issues affecting public healthcare delivery.
Faced with the Court’s clear indication that it was unwilling to interfere, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the SLP. The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal, effectively allowing the High Court’s inquiry process to continue unhindered.
Origin of the Controversy
The controversy originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pending before the Allahabad High Court concerning the functioning of:
- Moti Lal Nehru Medical College (MLNMC), Prayagraj
- Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital (SRN Hospital)
The PIL initially focused on allegations that certain doctors associated with the medical college were treating patients in private hospitals despite being prohibited from undertaking private medical practice.
During the course of proceedings, the High Court began examining broader issues affecting the institution, including:
- Infrastructure deficiencies
- Delayed construction projects
- Hostel conditions
- Administrative lapses
- Allegations of doctors operating private medical establishments
What began as a limited inquiry eventually expanded into a larger examination of the functioning of one of Uttar Pradesh’s premier government medical institutions.
High Court's Serious Observations
The Allahabad High Court expressed grave concern regarding the allegations emerging from the record.
According to information presented before the Court, several professors, associate professors, and lecturers of the medical college were allegedly:
- Practising in private nursing homes.
- Performing surgeries in private establishments.
- Diverting patients from government hospitals.
- Operating what the Court described as a “parallel medical industry.”
The High Court made the following significant observation:
“It appears that the condition of the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College and the attached hospital Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital has deteriorated not because there is a shortage of funds or amenities by the Government but because the medical fraternity is failing the object of the Government.”
The Court further observed that patients were allegedly being shifted from the government-run SRN Hospital to private facilities where government doctors were reportedly providing treatment.
If established, such conduct would raise serious questions regarding:
- Misuse of public office.
- Conflict of interest.
- Ethical obligations of medical professionals.
Access to affordable healthcare for ordinary citizens.
Allegations Against Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh
On May 4, 2026, the High Court took note of an FIR involving Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh and his wife.
The Court was informed that:
- Dr. Singh’s wife was serving as Director of Acura Hospital.
- Acura Hospital was a private nursing home.
- Dr. Singh was allegedly performing surgeries at the private establishment.
The High Court considered these allegations serious enough to warrant further examination within the broader inquiry into private medical practice by government doctors.
It is important to note that the High Court did not determine guilt but considered the allegations sufficiently serious to justify investigation.
Why Private Practice by Government Doctors is a Sensitive Issue
The issue of private practice by government doctors has been debated across India for decades.
Many states provide:
- Higher salaries,
- Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA),
- Additional government benefits,
in exchange for doctors devoting their professional services exclusively to public hospitals.
The rationale is straightforward:
Government doctors occupy positions funded by public money and are expected to provide medical care to citizens, particularly economically weaker sections who rely heavily on public healthcare institutions.
When doctors allegedly engage in unauthorized private practice, concerns arise regarding:
- Diversion of Patients
Patients may be persuaded to seek treatment at private facilities rather than receiving services in government hospitals.
- Conflict of Interest
Doctors may have financial incentives that conflict with their public duties.
- Reduced Availability
Doctors may become less available in government hospitals despite drawing government salaries.
- Public Resource Misuse
Government infrastructure, reputation, and patient networks may indirectly benefit private establishments.
- Erosion of Public Trust
Citizens may lose confidence in public healthcare institutions if they believe services are being deliberately weakened to promote private facilities.
Infrastructure Concerns Also Under Scrutiny
The PIL is not confined to allegations of private practice.
The Allahabad High Court has also highlighted serious infrastructure concerns.
One of the most striking observations related to the Cardiology Department.
The Court noted that:
- Construction work commenced in 2006.
- Government funds had been released.
- Despite this, two floors of the department remained incomplete nearly two decades later.
The Court also reviewed:
- Student hostel conditions.
- Delayed construction projects.
- Administrative inefficiencies.
- Overall institutional management.
Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the High Court directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to personally monitor progress.
Directions Issued by the Allahabad High Court
To address these concerns, the High Court directed:
High-Level Inquiry
A comprehensive inquiry into allegations that government doctors are engaging in unauthorized private practice.
Chief Secretary’s Oversight
The Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh was directed to supervise and monitor corrective measures.
Investigation into Earlier Complaints
The Court noted that similar allegations had surfaced previously and required appropriate examination.
Monitoring Infrastructure Projects
The State Government was directed to ensure completion of pending medical infrastructure projects.
Accountability Mechanisms
Authorities were asked to identify responsibility for lapses affecting both healthcare delivery and infrastructure development.
Significance of the Supreme Court's Refusal to Interfere
The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere is significant for several reasons.
Reinforcement of Public Accountability
The Court recognized that allegations concerning government doctors cannot be treated as merely private disputes when public healthcare systems are involved.
Support for Judicial Oversight
The decision allows the High Court to continue monitoring institutional reforms and investigations.
Emphasis on Public Interest
The observations of Justice Nagarathna reflect judicial concern for maintaining the integrity of government healthcare institutions.
Focus on Systemic Issues
Rather than concentrating on individual grievances, the Supreme Court highlighted the need to address broader structural concerns.
Broader Implications for Public Healthcare
This case may have implications beyond Prayagraj.
Across India, governments have increasingly focused on:
- Strengthening public healthcare.
- Improving hospital infrastructure.
- Expanding access to affordable treatment.
- Enhancing accountability within medical institutions.
The outcome of the High Court’s inquiry could influence future discussions regarding:
- Regulation of government doctors.
- Enforcement of non-practicing rules.
- Medical ethics and accountability.
- Governance of government medical colleges.
- Protection of patients dependent on public healthcare.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Santosh Kumar Singh v. Arvind Gupta & Anr. underscores the judiciary’s concern for preserving the integrity of public healthcare institutions. By declining to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s order, the Court has effectively allowed a comprehensive inquiry into allegations that government doctors may be operating a parallel private healthcare system while serving in government institutions.
The case is not merely about individual doctors; it raises larger questions about public accountability, medical ethics, patient welfare, and the proper utilization of taxpayer-funded healthcare infrastructure. As the inquiry progresses, its findings may have far-reaching consequences for healthcare governance and the regulation of government medical professionals across India.