ISLAMABAD(National Times)- In two significant interim orders drawing a distinction between professional discipline and the pursuit of education, a medical tribunal on Tuesday allowed two postgraduate doctors, who face two-year suspension of their medical licences, to continue postgraduate training and appear in their forthcoming final examinations, while their appeals against disciplinary action remain pending.
The three-member tribunal, headed by retired Justice Safdar Saleem Shahid, granted identical interim relief to Dr Tayyaba Fatima Toor and Dr Muhammad Essa, suspending the operation of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council disciplinary order dated July 28, 2026, but only to the extent necessary to enable them to continue and complete their postgraduate academic and training programmes and appear in their final postgraduate examinations.
The tribunal was careful, however, not to disturb the disciplinary findings at this stage or restore an unrestricted licence to practise medicine. It expressly clarified that the interim arrangement was provisional, subject to the final outcome of the appeals, and did not amount to an adjudication permitting the appellants to undertake independent clinical practice.
The two doctors were among five postgraduate trainees whose cases attracted considerable attention following the circulation of what became known as the “OT video leak scandal” at Lahore’s Lady Willingdon Hospital.
In April this year, the PMDC had publicly stated that five doctors — Dr Tayyaba Fatima Toor, Dr Zainab Tahir, Dr Muhammad Essa, Dr Ayesha Afzal and Dr Maham Amin — had appeared in preliminary proceedings concerning a video circulating on social media. The council subsequently referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee for final determination.
The disciplinary proceedings eventually resulted in the suspension of the medical registration licences of the appellants for two years. That decision is now under challenge before the Medical Tribunal, and Tuesday’s orders concern only the doctors’ applications for interim relief, rather than the merits of their appeals.
“Material distinction”
At the centre of the tribunal’s reasoning is a distinction likely to have wider relevance for disciplinary proceedings involving doctors who are simultaneously postgraduate trainees.
The tribunal held that there was a “material distinction” between permission to pursue an academic programme and appear in an examination, on the one hand, and permission independently to practise medicine under a professional licence, on the other.
The former, it observed, could, in an appropriate case, be protected provisionally without finally determining the latter.
The distinction enabled the tribunal to preserve the regulatory authority of the PMDC while ensuring that the pendency of an appeal did not itself cause academic consequences that could become irreversible before the legality of the disciplinary action had been finally determined.
According to the orders, counsel informed the tribunal that the appellants had already substantially completed their prescribed postgraduate training and cleared the requisite intermediate or mid-term component. Their final postgraduate examinations were stated to be due in approximately four months.
The tribunal observed that if the doctors were prevented from completing the remaining academic component and consequently missed their forthcoming examinations, success in their appeals at a later stage might not adequately restore the academic opportunity already lost.
Conversely, it held, permitting them provisionally to continue their academic programmes and sit the examinations would neither determine the validity of the disciplinary proceedings nor confer an unconditional right to practice medicine during the pendency of their appeals.
The cases will now proceed on their merits before the medical tribunal.
