Lovepreet Singh vs Department Of Health Research on 30 July, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Lovepreet Singh vs Department Of Health Research on 30 July, 2025

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOHRE/A/2024/629504

Shri Lovepreet Singh                                           ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Department of Health Research                        ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                         :   28.07.2025
Date of Decision                        :   28.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          21.05.2024
PIO replied on                    :          10.06.2024
First Appeal filed on             :          13.06.2024
First Appellate Order on          :          05.07.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :          11.07.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

"1. Eligibility Of Bems Doctors To Practice Allopathy: Please Provide Me Information Are Bems Doctors Authorized To Practice Allopathy (Modern Medicine) In India.

If Yes, Please Provide A Copy Of The Official Order Or Notification From The Government Of India Or Any Relevant Authority Permitting Bems Doctors To Practice Allopathy.

2. Legal And Regulatory Framework:

If Bems Doctors Are Not Authorized To Practice Allopathy, Please Provide The Relevant Order Or Notification From The Government Of India Or Any Relevant Authority That Clearly States This Prohibition.

3. Guidelines And Regulations:

Provide Copies Of The Guidelines And Regulations Issued By The National Medical Commission (Nmc) Or The Medical Council Of India (Mci) Regarding The Practice Of Allopathy By Individuals Holding Qualifications In Alternative Medicine Systems Such As Electropathy.

4. Legal Precedents:

Information On Any Legal Cases Or Judgments That Specifically Address The Issue Of Bems Doctors Practicing Allopathy, If Available."

The CPIO, Director vide letter dated 10.06.2024 replied as under:-

Page 1 of 3

2. It is noted from the attached copy of your RTI application, dated 21.05.2024 -

which was addressed to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW) - that information has been sought whether a holder of BEMS degree (Bachelor of Electropathy Medicine and Surgery) is authorized to practice Allopathy. Now, while any information regarding practice in Allopathy can be furnished by MoH&FW /National Medical Commission, as the matter comes under their jurisdiction, the issue of Electropathy relates to DHR. Therefore, it may be informed that, so far as BEMS degree is concerned, since Electropathy itself is not a system of medicine recognized by the Central Government, no educational qualification in this unrecognized system, like BEMS, is recognized by the Government. ""

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.06.2024. The FAA, Joint Secretary vide order dated 05.07.2024 replied as under:-

"6. It is, thus, found that CPIO's response was correct, to the point and unambiguous, and, therefore, none of the grounds for appeal, mentioned above, may be applicable to CPIO's response. The appellant may note that any information relating to eligibility for practice, by whomsoever, in allopathy medicine, may have to be furnished by the NMC and/or the Department of Health and Family Welfare in MOH&FW, DHR can not furnish information on an issue, which does not fall under its jurisdiction.

7. In view of the above, the undersigned does not find any ground to interfere with the reply of the CPIO, dated 10.06.2024."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Singh- Under Secretary was present during hearing.

The Respondent stated that the query raised by the Appellant had been duly responded with a response based on available records, in terms of the RTI Act. The Appellant chose not to participate in the hearing.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate, based on existing records and the Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 3

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission