General Medical Council v Dr Rajesh Raju Jain [2025] EWHC 733 (Admin)
Summary
The GMC applied for an extension of an interim order imposed on Dr. Jain’s registration due to concerns about his fitness to practice, citing misconduct and health issues. The interim order was initially imposed by an Interim Orders Tribunal and was due to expire on 18 December 2024. The GMC sought a 12-month extension up to 8 December 2025.
Dr. Jain opposed the application, arguing that the allegations were not of the utmost seriousness and that the GMC had failed to demonstrate the need for an extension. He highlighted procedural breaches, including delays and lack of reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Dr. Jain also emphasised that the interim order had caused him personal and professional harm, including a relapse of depression symptoms.
The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Kerr, who had earlier refused to recuse himself from the case, dismissed the GMC’s application for an extension. The judge noted that the allegations were not of the utmost gravity and that the GMC’s disciplinary process was marked by delays. The court found that the seriousness of the allegations did not justify a further delay of nearly a year and emphasised the public interest in not deskilling doctors. The outright suspension of Dr. Jain was deemed disproportionate given the circumstances.
Dr. Jain opposed the application, arguing that the allegations were not of the utmost seriousness and that the GMC had failed to demonstrate the need for an extension. He highlighted procedural breaches, including delays and lack of reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Dr. Jain also emphasised that the interim order had caused him personal and professional harm, including a relapse of depression symptoms.
The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Kerr, who had earlier refused to recuse himself from the case, dismissed the GMC’s application for an extension. The judge noted that the allegations were not of the utmost gravity and that the GMC’s disciplinary process was marked by delays. The court found that the seriousness of the allegations did not justify a further delay of nearly a year and emphasised the public interest in not deskilling doctors. The outright suspension of Dr. Jain was deemed disproportionate given the circumstances.