Newsmatro
In a recent interview, Dr. RV Asokan, the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), expressed his disappointment over the Supreme Court’s criticism of the practices of the IMA and private doctors.
He remarked that it was unfortunate for the Supreme Court to castigate their practices. However, the court promptly responded, expressing its disapproval of comments made on matters that were still sub-judice.
During a hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court directly addressed Dr. Asokan, admonishing him for his remarks and emphasizing that the court’s observations in the ongoing Patanjali case applied equally to the IMA.
The court clarified that it did not expect accolades and was well accustomed to facing criticism.
The Supreme Court particularly took issue with Dr. Asokan’s statement to a news agency, where he had criticized the court’s stance as a sweeping judgment that did not befit its stature.
The court questioned the rationale behind such remarks, especially when the IMA had previously accused the opposing party, Patanjali Ayurved, of misleading the public.
Senior advocate PS Patwalia, representing the Indian Medical Association, intervened, arguing that Dr. Asokan’s remarks had been misconstrued and taken out of context.
He emphasized that Dr. Asokan had been led into making such comments by the nature of the questions posed.
Responding to Patwalia’s defense, the Supreme Court maintained its stance, asserting that it was not seeking praise but was prepared to face criticism, reaffirming its resilience in the face of public opinion.
Patwalia requested additional time until the following week to present further submissions on behalf of the Indian Medical Association, indicating a desire to clarify and rectify any misunderstandings arising from Dr. Asokan’s statements.