Delhi High Court: Bail Condition Barring Doctor from Running Own Medical Centre Does Not Violate Right to Livelihood
The Delhi High Court has held that imposing as a condition of bail that a doctor abstain from operating his own medical centre does not amount to a breach of the fundamental right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Facts of the Case
A medical practitioner faced allegations that he ran a centre where unqualified individuals allegedly performed surgery, resulting in the death of a patient from excessive bleeding after an operation. He applied for the removal of two bail conditions: (1) that he not engage in the business of running the medical centre, and (2) that he not leave Delhi.
The court found that the medical-centre condition had been imposed to ensure a fair investigation and prevent recurrence of alleged wrongdoing.
Court’s Reasoning
The court observed that the condition did not amount to an outright prohibition on the doctor practising medicine altogether; rather, it restricted operation of the particular centre during the duration of trial.
It held that the doctor could still connect with another medical centre, thereby continuing his profession and earning livelihood, so the right under Article 19(1)(g) was not cut off.
Bail conditions, the court noted, may be fashioned to serve investigatory ends and protect public interest; they need not always favour the accused’s business arrangements.
Accordingly, while the condition barring operation of the centre was upheld as reasonable in the context of the case, the court struck down the travel-outside-Delhi condition, given the stage of proceedings and absence of risk of flight.
Significance
This ruling confirms that bail conditions restricting certain business activities of the accused—especially when linked to the alleged offence—do not automatically translate into unconstitutional interference with the right to livelihood, so long as alternative avenues of practice remain open
