The Long Shadow of Justice: Doctors Struck Off Register for '96 Delhi Blast

More than two decades later, the shadow of the horrific 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast in Delhi continues to stretch long and, frankly, relentlessly. In a development that many might see as a powerful, albeit belated, assertion of justice, the National Medical Commission (NMC) has finally stepped in, canceling the professional registrations of four doctors from Jammu and Kashmir. This isn’t just about a bureaucratic decision; it’s a story that ties professional conduct to one of the most brutal acts of terrorism in recent Indian history.

The four individuals – Dr. Mohammad Shafi, Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmed, Dr. Mohammad Ali Bhatt, and Dr. Mirza Nisar Hussain – have had their licenses stripped away with immediate effect. Why now, you might ask? Well, their names, you see, have been inextricably linked to that devastating explosion which ripped through Lajpat Nagar market on May 21, 1996, claiming thirteen innocent lives and injuring thirty-nine others. It was a day etched in collective memory for its sheer brutality.

Their journey through the justice system, in truth, has been a tortuous one, spanning years of legal battles and appeals. A trial court, way back in 2010, found them guilty, a verdict subsequently affirmed by the Delhi High Court as recently as 2023. And then, the Supreme Court, later that same year, upheld their convictions, even if it chose to commute the death penalty for two of them to life imprisonment. It’s a complex tapestry of judicial review, isn’t it, but the core fact of their guilt in the eyes of the law remained solid.

The NMC, a body entrusted with upholding the highest standards of medical ethics and professional conduct in India, deliberated on this weighty matter. Its Ethical Committee, in fact, met just this March, and it was there that the conclusive decision was reached. Citing Section 8.3 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 – a provision, you could say, that gives them the power to act against serious misconduct – they moved to revoke the registrations. It's a clear statement: such serious criminal convictions cannot simply be overlooked in the realm of medical practice.

For the medical community, and indeed for the wider public, this move serves as a stark, if perhaps painful, reminder. Professional accountability extends beyond clinical competence; it encompasses one's entire conduct, especially when faced with grave criminal charges. The implications are profound, suggesting that even after decades, the long arm of the law, complemented by professional bodies, will eventually catch up, demanding a reckoning. It's a powerful narrative about justice, memory, and the unwavering commitment to ethical practice.