सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा: चुनावी जनादेश नहीं देता प्रतिनिधियों को असीम अधिकार

The Supreme Court has underscored that an electoral mandate does not confer unfettered authority upon an elected representative to exercise personal influence, intimidate individuals or bypass institutions entrusted with maintaining law and order and administering justice.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observations while setting aside the bail granted to Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre and three others in connection with an alleged assault on doctors and medical staff at a municipal hospital.

The Court emphasised that democratic legitimacy derived from elections remains circumscribed by the rule of law. An elected representative, it said, cannot appropriate for himself the functions vested by law in the police, administrative authorities or the judiciary.

The Bench observed that persons occupying elected office are entrusted with the responsibility of representing citizens and strengthening public institutions rather than supplanting them through personal intervention.

The Court particularly expressed concern over situations in which an elected representative treats the mandate received from voters as a source of personal power and seeks to command, threaten or compel compliance through influence.

According to the Bench, such conduct has ramifications beyond the immediate victim, as the use of political or personal influence to secure compliance through intimidation can undermine public confidence in the rule of law.

The observations assume particular significance in the context of attacks or intimidation directed against doctors performing their professional duties. The Court noted that medical practitioners frequently work in circumstances involving vulnerable patients, emergencies and decisions requiring immediate professional judgment.

The case arose from an incident in July 2026 involving Mhatre and three others, who were accused of assaulting and verbally abusing three doctors, including a woman doctor, in the labour ward of a municipal hospital. The alleged altercation followed a dispute concerning the shifting of a pregnant woman in labour.

The State of Maharashtra had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision concerning the accused’s bail. The State contended that the High Court had adopted inconsistent approaches while dealing with the bail issue and had not identified any intervening circumstance warranting a departure from its earlier assessment.

The Supreme Court accepted the State’s contention that the High Court had failed to adequately explain the change in its approach.

While considering Mhatre’s bail, the Bench also took note of his criminal antecedents. The Court recorded that 18 cases had been registered against him, although he had been acquitted or discharged in 16 of those proceedings. The prosecution had also expressed apprehension that his influence could potentially affect material witnesses.

The Bench further took note of the fact that Mhatre had remained admitted to the prison ward of a District Civil Hospital during his police and judicial custody. It also considered reports that some of the doctors involved in the incident had either resigned or stopped attending duties because of fear.

The Court held that the alleged impact of the incident upon the medical fraternity was relevant while assessing the possibility of intimidation of witnesses and the broader consequences of the accused’s alleged conduct.

It also referred to another incident involving alleged assaults on doctors and hospital personnel in Palghar, observing that the circumstances highlighted the concerns surrounding the safety and security of medical professionals.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s order insofar as it restored the bail granted to the four accused. They were directed to surrender before the trial court by October 5, 2026, while being granted liberty to seek bail afresh if circumstances materially changed.

The Court also directed the Maharashtra government to independently examine whether the provisions of applicable preventive-detention legislation were attracted in the circumstances of the case.

Further, the Special Fast Track Court was requested to make efforts for an expeditious conclusion of the trial. The prosecution was directed to reassess its list of 64 witnesses and omit those whose testimony was not considered necessary.

The trial court was also directed to ensure adequate protection for material witnesses, particularly doctors and hospital staff, in accordance with the Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Act, 2017.

At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations concerning the protection of medical professionals should not be construed as conferring immunity upon doctors for negligence or dereliction of duty. Any such allegations, the Court said, must likewise be addressed strictly in accordance with law.

The judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre & Ors. thus reiterates the constitutional distinction between authority legally conferred by public office and personal influence exercised by an individual, making clear that electoral legitimacy does not place an elected representative beyond the discipline of law.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News