General Medical Council v Dr Rajesh Raju Jain

The court refused the General Medical Council's application to extend an interim order under section 41A of the Medical Act 1983 for a further 12 months. The judge applied the criteria set out in General Medical Council v Hiew to assess whether the allegations, rather than their truth, justified prolonging the suspension: the gravity of the allegations; the nature of the evidence; the risk to patients or the public interest; and the reasons for seeking an extension. The court found that although the evidence, if proved, could sustain charges, the allegations were not at the most serious end of the spectrum and posed no direct significant risk to patient safety beyond the single complaint. The primary and decisive ground for refusing the extension was the extensive and inexcusable delay by the regulator: the GMC had not progressed the case towards a substantive hearing, had not fixed a tribunal date and had allowed the matter to drift, producing a disproportionate interference with the doctor’s ability to practise. The judge also considered but rejected a recusal application based on the judge's earlier decision in Jain v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 1841 (Admin).

Background and procedural posture. The General Medical Council applied under section 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983 for an extension of an interim order (suspension) affecting Dr Jain's registration for up to 12 months, to run until December 2025. The interim suspension had been imposed by an Interim Orders Tribunal and subsequently varied from conditions to suspension; the tribunal had earlier maintained conditions and then, after further material, moved to suspension. The application proceeded as a Part 8 claim before Mr Justice Kerr on 28 January 2025. There was also an oral and written application by Dr Jain for the judge to recuse himself, which was dismissed.

Facts in outline. The allegations arise from incidents between July 2022 and September 2024 and include alleged inappropriate remarks to a female doctor in July 2022, an alleged inappropriate consultation with a patient in January 2023, probity and status issues in relation to practice in Wales, and a breach of interim conditions in September 2024. Two health assessments dated from 2023 opined that Dr Jain was fit to practise with restrictions. An expert report in August 2024 criticised aspects of care in the January 2023 consultation. The interim orders tribunal concluded the risk profile had elevated and imposed suspension.

Nature of the claim/application. The GMC sought an extension of the interim suspension for up to 12 months under section 41A(6) and (7) so that the regulator could progress the matter to a substantive adjudication if appropriate.

Issues framed by the court.

• Whether the statutory criteria for extending an interim order were met, applying the Hiew principles: gravity of the allegations, nature of the evidence, risk to patients/public interest, and reasons for the extension.
• Whether the balance of public protection and the doctor’s interests, including the risk of deskilling and the impact of delay, justified prolonging suspension.
• Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself because of a prior related judgment.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions. The court accepted that the allegations, if proved, could support disciplinary action but were not at the most serious level (not involving financial fraud, systematic incompetence or widespread patient harm). The judge emphasised the regulator’s duty to progress cases and found the GMC had not discharged the onus to show that an extension was necessary: much of the evidence had been available since mid-2023, no tribunal hearing had been fixed (even provisionally), and the regulator had relied on bureaucratic explanations for delay. The balance of interests favoured allowing the claim to be dismissed because continuing a suspension for nearly a further year was disproportionate in the circumstances and risked unnecessary deskilling and hardship to the doctor. The preliminary recusal application was rejected as unfounded: the judge did not accept that earlier involvement in a related appeal created a real risk of bias.

Wider implications. The judgment criticises delay in the regulatory disciplinary process and underscores that prolonged interim measures must be justified by a timely and proportionate regulatory response; where the regulator permits an investigation to drift, continued suspension may be refused even where allegations are arguable.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the GMC had not satisfied the criteria in section 41A and the established Hiew principles to justify a further 12 month extension of the interim suspension because the allegations, while capable of supporting charges, were not of the utmost gravity and the GMC had unreasonably delayed progressing the case, producing a disproportionate interference with the doctor’s ability to practise. The judge also refused the defendant’s application for recusal, finding no real possibility of bias.