Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner has filed the writ petition in W. P. No. 12428 of 1998 seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the notice of the second respondent dated 3-8-1998 purporting to be issued under Rule 1 of Part IV of the Code of Ethics, and to forbear the respondents from in any manner taking penal action against the petitioner. He has also filed W. P. No. 12429 of 1998 seeking to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Rule 1 of Part IV of 'Code of Medical Ethics' of Tamilnadu Medical Counsel as ultra vires the Constitution of India, illegal, inoperative and non est in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner acquired degree in medicine. He has also been designated as M.D. and Ph.D. in accupuncture. An article was published in Tamil Health Magazine, 'Family Health' regarding the view of American Doctors who had expressed that children who had been administered with polio vaccine are not totally immune to the said disease but are prone to subsequent attack of the said virus based on their research. In view of the said publication, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 17-10-1997 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. In the said notice it is stated that the said publication amounts to an advertisement for the purpose of obtaining patients or promoting his own professional advantage commending and directing attention of the public to the petitioner's professional skill and knowledge and it is contrary to public interest and discreditable to the medical profession. The petitioner also submitted his explanation. After submitting his explanation, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said Rule prohibits a person's right to speak and so it offends Article 19 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to express his views which right has been guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and so the said Rule should be declared as unconstitutional. He has relied on the decision in in support of his submission. 4. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to express his views which right has been guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and so the said Rule should be declared as unconstitutional. He has relied on the decision in in support of his submission. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a member of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and the Medical Council has formulated the Code of Medical Ethics. Part IV of the Code of Ethics had been laid down on the basis of the resolution passed at the Extraordinary Special Business Meeting dated 20-1-1975. The relevant Code reads as follows :- "The action should be taken against the registered medical practitioners in cases where there is contribution in Tamil Journals of articles relating to the description of the disease symptoms and treatment if they contained the name and designation or address or qualifications or photo of the medical practitioners." 5. In the counter the second respondent has relied on this Rule also to sustain their right to issue the impugned show cause notice. On a reading of the said Rules, under Part IV, the purpose for framing such guidelines is only to prevent the medical practitioners from solicitation of persons directly or indirectly. Now the dispute is whether such Rule has to be construed as prohibition or infringement of petitioner's fundamental right to express his views. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a member of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. It is also not in dispute that the said Council is entitled to have the Code of Medical Ethics to regulate the conduct of the members. While doing so, the second respondent has formulated the said Rule. So, it cannot be said that it amounts to prohibition or infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right to express his views. But it is framed only to regulate the conduct of the members of the association in accordance with Art. 19(6)(i) of the Constitution of India. Such a restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable. 7. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel, namely, will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Apex Court has decided about the right of the general public and they are not bound by any Code of conduct. 8. Such a restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable. 7. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel, namely, will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Apex Court has decided about the right of the general public and they are not bound by any Code of conduct. 8. It is not stated before me by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said Council has no right to have the Code of conduct. The impugned Rule has been framed only to see that the medical practitioners are not soliciting patients directly or indirectly, which is unethical to the profession. 9. Moreover, the Rule itself cannot be construed as a total prohibition with respect to the contribution of articles in Tamil Journals. The said restriction would apply only if the said article contains the name and designation or address or qualifications or photo of the medical practitioners. So, from the said Rule it is very clear that contribution of articles is not against the Code of conduct but it is against the code of conduct only if it contains the name and designation or address or qualifications or photo of the medical practitioners who contributed the articles. So, it is not correct to submit that the said Rule prohibits the petitioner from expressing his views. So, the entire arguments on the basis that the said Rule prohibits or infringe the fundamental right cannot be correct and the said argument is unsustainable. It is against the scope of the said Rule itself. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the said Council has not taken action with respect to other doctors who have also contributed articles with addresses and photographs. I am surprised to hear such an argument from the learned Senior Counsel. Merely because the Medical Council has not taken action against some of the doctors, the petitioner cannot escape from his misconduct, if the petitioner had committed such misconduct as alleged by the respondents, citing the abovesaid facts. 11. The abovesaid facts will clearly prove that the said Rule is valid one and enforceable in law. It does not prevent anybody from expressing one's views, but subject to the restrictions imposed therein in accordance with Art. 19(6)(i) of the Constitution of India. 12. 11. The abovesaid facts will clearly prove that the said Rule is valid one and enforceable in law. It does not prevent anybody from expressing one's views, but subject to the restrictions imposed therein in accordance with Art. 19(6)(i) of the Constitution of India. 12. Since the said Rule is held to be valid, it is for the petitioner to appear for enquiry, if any to be held, and to establish his case on merits. At this stage this Court cannot interfere with the proceedings initiated by the respondents. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations, with costs of Rs. 1,000/- each. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. Nos. are closed. Petition dismissed.