Karnataka High Court
Indian Medical Association Brahmawara ... vs State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THEi8"'DAY 01+' JANUAR;'_:'F"2{_1_iV:{'-): f
THE HON'BLE MR. JUsTICE~AN,'A&D '13S{R}§§E[f;T:j3<j
WRIT PETITION N:5;7;:»;54 OT: % x
BETWEEN:
Indian Medical Asscyciatioig' " .
Regisiered Lzndemhe Kz1Ar.1".1:;1I2Ti~:.z1'--. ' "
Societies Rcgists-':,1th>r1 /~'{.;c:t. _,
Brah 11'iVa\~'z1i"aT' BT2_;:1c ' '
Near Bus 'V *-
Udupi--576~?.l3.. ' _ S
Rep_w.'-;€:_11Eed.Vb3r its' President:
D:';F*mi11fianV21b huCl'1a ,. V
Sufi r)f"'S:ub_ba;dyacharya,
I Aged ...PETITIONER
V MT:.'R:.;{vip1'ztkaash, Advocate)
AND;
A V1 Sum: of Ka1'na1Iai<;e.
" By its Sec,-1~eta1--y,
Department of Health and Famiiy Welfare,
§V{.S.Building.,
B;1ng;1E<>re--56@()l.
§\.J
R)
The Drugs Cqmtrolier in Karnataka,
Palace Road.
Banga101"e--56U 001.
Assistant Drugs Controller,
Mangalore Circle, 1
Balmata Road,
Kankanadi,
Ma11ga10re-S7S 002.
The National lnte'g.rxated'VM'ed§_¢':a1 A_$sociati0n,~'
Karnataka State 1:34-ra;11cAh;--_ 1
Murali Clinic, T V "
on Mm £-:oa_;1, %
1 " Bah we » {I841
.~;.e.n y $14.3 E 'rm;-1 11,
1'33} aya1p1'a_k£1$Vr;. N'a..1f_2iy:u"1, major.
; ' ~ Dr.
ESQn_0f Late E).r..S}.V.S:--inivasa Murthy.
P{g;%d"a,b(>ut 62 years,
3 _ "S¢V;£"§\§u:'sing Home,
6.
V' '1 00.. feet 'R636,
Mai1d;}V%;:-571 404.
" .D&~.C.G.Rabhuvee:'a SdlT3al"[h'cE,
Son of Late Dr.C.G0pa1 R210.
Aged major, D.No.20 (Old No.35)
Sirva Park Road.
M;11iesl1\Iva:'ana.
Bangalo1'e--56() 003.
6
(By Shri.N.Devadas, Advocate. for I€'t'eisit)oii<£en<t_4;i'
Sh1"i.B.L.Ach31'ya, Advocate for Resp<)i1det:}i;s5 to. IQ
Shri.S.B.Shahapur. Addi[i()I};;1i Gm./e'i=i11Taent--'i--t. tea.'
Respondenttd to 3, __'_m_.u
Shri.D.S.Hosmath_. Advocate for RVes'p<e)ndent-,,|A_l:)' ' This Writ Petitimi.ér;~fi_ie<i 'L1.;1'(:i..;_1'iA:ti&e"ie'si22(5 and 227 of the Constitution ofrf 'mdiizi ;)1't1y'i13g....t<) 'det1:i':*eV_th_Lit the notification vide Annex:Lire?I)t'g!,é;t'ed:ii"ft6.8}20U3 Liltra vires and quash the same and deeiatife' {.i'}£i'i['i:Vi'i71_t:3V'.0i:(Li£i:i"-ijiI'idt3I' the originui of Annexui'e~E pubiishetifin Ka1'i':1ziteikz1 ifigifiettie 1988 dated: 25.8.1988 No.HFW 36 PTD 79,«,_Ba..11ga!oi'e_ (hated: 20.6.1988 as illegal and ultravires the Act and qiiash' the Raine and etc., This _\7\'T;'it Petition having been heard and re.~;erved on Li i'V3.iU'!,.2'{).!_(3 'coming on for pl'()n()ili1C€-|Tl€I3[ of' orders' this day. the' .CoLii"t (ie_iix=e'i'ed the following: ~ 0 R D E R i I*iet1:'c1 the Counsel "for the parties.
2. The facts are foliowss The petitioner is 3 branch of the Indian Medical A.~_;sc)c.iation, :1 Society regiéstered under the Societies Registrz'11ion 5 (3 the scope of Rule 2 tee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics ..Rt.i:Ie--si.*--i945, ineiudes persons not registered with the Medical.Couvnciii=io'f The petitioner therefore was constrained» to ~i_pt)i_nt:ioti_t '[iI3J,'.vpit1i)iiCj' health would come to serious h£ti'ini'i_jf' it-here wia_:< titty?Citirttt-ioi1~.t)f the requirement of registration i\iirV--l':[ii'il'.ii1€ Medictt1'.Coi;neil of India to enable prescription V<'it"~aiiopathic" .nied'i~i;.ine.s by non--aElopathic practitioners. It was ttEso_V_p.'ointei_t_i t)t1t*"'theti~i..tj}1.is wouid lead to the danger of wide iiiloweven 're'spo:i,d'e--i1ts*-2' and 3 are said to have referred to Nt)tit'ictttion...dated issued by the State of Karnataka to iiC..{:2'ii'ii:§SiI§!.g. i1i,_I[h()i"iii€f;~~~~L-iiidfil' the E945 Rules. to declare that persons i"egi'steii'edt iii' Register maintained under the KSUY Act, be Ct:»IiStd6tT2dif;«ESi persons prttctisingg modern scientific systern of Atnedicivt1_e:'t't.)r the purpose of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. ii --..in».th'e result. the practitioneis under the said Act were enabied to
-~pt'escribe t1ii£.)pLlIi"!it.' medicines which vvas not only illegai but posed £1 gl'él\2'fii danger to pttigc health.
"1
3. It is contended that under the Medical Degrees Act, E9I6, the qualifications and degrees prescribedi.~«tt).i_¢'€:1§t1'fi'1¢ii' Ihfi practice of allopathic medicine mdo not include._Ay<.iii*veda, Un'e:ni,°' Siddha and Yoga they do not belong:.t.Ol[.he:t\ie'$tern'».or__rnoderni' system of medicine. Therefore,-.person3_ holding: i'qi.t;z1l_Vificetionsin the said systems of medicine c;tn'1to_t -be staid-.t_o holiii degrees in Allopathic medicine andiertej not L re{cogn'iS'ed 'as such. it thtit.lwith introduction of Chapter IVA and Secitionspp33{.g\'}---i:.to of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, E940 with rei*ei*ei'"tcie to the rule making power for Ayurveda, Uininni Siddlta medicines, the stand of respondent nos. 2 and 3 enables practitioners under those systems of ntetiécine to"pi'e..scribe allopathic mediciiies. is not sustainable. A' The petitioner states that on an earlier occasion this court ii\§\/its approztclied on the very issue of nt)n~:1EEopathic and unqualified p1"c£C[l[i0l'1@1"S issuing prescriptions for ailopathic drugsi K this court observed that the authorities shuil take acti.o"n.i:'wherever there is violation, as per order dated petition No.34633/2000. *-
It is also pointed out considering the scope of ()i;d.[i"1€..Dl?iEVlg_S 'Cdsmetiics Act. 1940 has heid t,i'i:;zt_'pefiriiiis' requisite qualification under not entitled to prescribe ailti?}jat}'t;i.L:.'me:t?1icine's. T'hViis'--.'tiiec:_i.s'i0ra is reported in AIR i999 SC 468.
it iscentehdedyithtitgthe K£1l'Ei'dI'di(d State Government has Cir-cuiztr daited 28.11.2()Oi whereby chemists and ' tireggisVts«.;ii*eViitistructed that they shuil borrow prescriptions issued i'(.)l'i"'iAiitiptiftfilif medicines by Ailopathic doctors as weii p1~actitiu':gers of Integrated System of Medicine. It is the petiti;0ner's grievance that by this Circular, the state. has equated 1 fxlitipathic doctors and practitioi'iei' of Integrated Medicine. é 9 It is contended that this View of the State ocsy-ei~ia;'.-mien: is contrary to the IMC Act and the Indian Medicaid"-Cent1*ai' Act 1970. A It is in this background t.h_;.tt theA.pei-itiionelii.$;';ei§.:;"to Annexure ' D' dated i6.()8.2{){}3'i'i.i£hir:h by the third respondent to thatnithose registered with the MCI (:_0t.ild allopathic drugs.
Annexure Notification of the State .to declare that persons possessing C}L121iiJ['iC"t11ti'()'i"k$' u'n.d:eii.ijV'tshe"-Schedule to the KSUY Act are persons practicing iinoderns--cie';1tii'i'ic system of medicine for the purpose of fend_pCosnietvir_:s..«Act, 1940 and Annextire "G" » at Cil'CUiEll"
» bf,-5 _Kai'iia1taka State Goveiiinient pi'esci'ibing certain .coiticiQitions:to.ij'be" taken to curb non--ailopathic practitioners from p'i'e4sc1"ibin§_:j t}ii[i()p&IhiC medicines while exempting practitioners oi' Integifuted System of Medicine.
é H}
4. Respondent nos.5 to l{) have contested theA..petition..i'Shri. B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate. appearing for thie-._c(>*tiii:se'l foifthe petitioner contends that the above;"i"esponde'i.tts-I'hail/e_i.ntp'lez;1de.d themselves the petition was tiled wgthout i1hpTE€I;1tjii1gihé"SE:il'Cl' respondents, who would be directlsyliaffected1);"any 'orders issued in terms of the prayerj 'lfr: said 1-:tespo:»1de.nts hold the Graduate Course of Indian.iVlediciAnwc--vDeVgreeA [This was a course of SW3)' iHl1'<3Cltl€5C£l ziild w:as"ic()ntinued tiii about the Year I963. 'A ' ' if This was,a five Ac'.nid'.§i~ii'hEilf. year course. The syllabi is similar to ,_tl'is1tZprespcribed'fo1'__.the MBBS degree. The respondents have iV.iLivI1(wJ€¥'g0.l..1€t ,V'ap_'pt'enticeship in recognised ailopathic hospitals pr'o_.v7iding.'E1*ea{inent in modern medicine. They are registered as Medical 'i'i°actitioners -- under the provisions of the Kamataka ".AAyLir:vedic and Unani Practitioners Registration and Medical a _,_.Pi'actitione:*s Miscellaneous Provisions Act, l9ol. A practitioner registered under the said Agis enabled to practice both the so-
called modern system of medicine and the Indigen()us_s-ysteni of medicine and hence is also in a position to pt'e_s.«a__i'il§ie".£:'E'l(ip~:t_t_hi_c medicine. It is pointed out that doctt_),:1<;..i.n integtate-di.';vmedici.ne~ 1 i also entered Government service a1id'.ha7v_*e"in()stlyi'retiredi"'b_ti'ti--the broad reliefs sought by the peti't.i_d11ei" wtiuld 'afi'ei:;tl'ztniiestatalished right of the respondents' and iltl"i's'Atb:' reas0'n* that they have impleaded themselves to p1'0tecti'v"theit' \;es"te'd.interest. It is coiiiteniiilsed tlittt KlSU_Y-ii'Ae--t..w:has come into force in the year 1962 the assent of the President on 4.3. E962. 'p1'ta1'!}1iZ9lCi i€)i~'ill]€ Act. inter alia. states that the Act is to V-i;ii*t)\/;bi.(j'e for 1'€glS'E'i'i1~ii()H of p1'actiti0ne1's of Integrated System of Med'it'i:i'ie iit'vEii(i~.,_[(i:)'"1111161361 the law relating to Medical Practitioners get1.4e--rally~. DIET defines "Integrated System of §\/iedicine"" as 21 conjtiinr. 'study, training and practice in indigenous medicine and 'g_in'i*>dei'n medicine. It is also by way of explanation amplified that 'the modern medicine means modern scientific medicine including surgery and obstetrics. The Schedule to the Act fttrnishes details é 1?, of qualifications to be possessed for registration as also recognises the institutions which could confer such qua§tii_fications. The Graduate Course of Indian Medicine (GClM_)_th_e heading -- Integrated Medicine as specified Li.i"1"Cl't".i"~i{:l"':€iSCl"it§LlL1_lc3"f'() the Act. Under the Act. a 1'egiste1"ed. Medical'i?_racti'tioner.oxiirhti is 2 registered to practice integrated ._lVlwe_dici1ie,V_is iprivvilege'dw to'"p1'actice both modern system t)t7.medici'i'ie-.a:; i/v»e_ll asthe. Eridian system. The Act has received the asseiiit~i'o'f ??resi__deiit and therefore, even ifthere"isaiiyiiinicciiigisteiicy Between the Act and the Medical Council_Ac_t._ 'l95$"theproy»isi_o11s under the Karnataka Act would prevail. On the other h*2i,rio=, there is no inconsistency between the Ka}1"_i'}ziiI'£tti§t1 Actand the two Central Eiiactments namely. the Indian Central iéouncil Act, E970 and the Indian Medical Section 17 of the 1970 Actin fact recognises i';u'icl'isavesjthif privileges conferred upon a i'egistered Medical Pra'ct.iti'one'riiiby the State Act. Hence, it is submitted that the V "|:)*;~~(:?EldViV€e1i€f.'S sought by the petitioner t_>L1ght not to affect the right 3 in contemiuns putwforth by the respondents as to their privilege being valid in law, would cause grave injustice. 'I'here'.i,si'-h_eii1Ce no ground made out to pass any orders as prayed--3__f0i'4 petition insofar as the ;3i'z1cti1i1.):1es"s.. Qf ir_:tegi'i-iteid 'Sy_Srem_V (u)1".i Medicine. who are holders of stated, as the existing clauseiprb*.£i»de iifiior,gideeiegire-iyirfiieaéjures respect of any violatkgri bf "ijpractitioners prescribing allopathic prayed for are wh(_)i1;/'ii sL1peI*%1e()us ?l1hd_de..&r1i')t warrant coiisiderelticin. The petiti-Qnkzeceirdjii'g«ly' stands disposed of. sd./~ gudqe