Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Though these three groups have different shades, all these matters pertain to interpretation and applications of the provisions of Central Act and Maharashtra Act and therefore, all these writ petitions may be disposed off by this common judgment.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. The affidavit of Director, Directorate of Ayurved, Maharashtra State has been filed explaining the scope of provisions of Central Act and the Maharashtra Act. It is contended that before the amendment of 1979 in the Maharashtra Act, there were two categories of the medical practitioners. It is contended that basic object of the Central Act is to regulate the minimum qualifications for practicing Indian Medicine and to provide for constitution of Central Council of Indian medicines and the maintenance of Central Register of Indian Medicines and the matters connected therein. The object is also to regulate the practice of large number of registered Practitioners in this system. As set out by the statement of objections and reasons the main function of the Central Council is to evolve uniform standard of education and in registration of practitioners medicines of the Indian medicines to ensure that unqualified persons are prevented from entering into this practice. The Central Act clearly identifies the recognised medical qualification and degrees/diplomas conferred or awarded by different Medical Colleges and Institutions in Second, Third and Fourth Schedule. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad is not one of the institutes recognised for the purpose of imparting education in Ayurved and therefore, the degrees and diplomas in Ayurved conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are not recognised medical qualifications in the Second Schedule. However, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was recognised under the erstwhile Rules in the State of Uttar Pradesh from the year 1931 to 1967. As it was found that the standard of education and examination etc. was not upto the mark, in the Second Schedule the degrees of Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag during the period from 1931 to 1967 are shown as recognised medical qualifications. However, such degrees conferred after 1967 are not recognised medical qualifications as per the Second Schedule. Validity of these provisions has been upheld in number of matters by the Supreme Court. It is contended that in view of this, the petitioners, who have been conferred such degrees and diplomas in Ayurved either by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag after 1967 or by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad at any time, do not hold recognised medical qualifications and therefore, under the provisions of the Central Act, as well as, the Maharashtra Act they are not entitled to be registered as medical practitioners in Indian Medicines. The provisions of Section 18 of the Maharashtra Act prior to the Amendment Act in 1979 were in conflict with the provisions of Section 17 of the Central Act which prohibits unqualified persons from practicing and therefore, Section 18 was appropriately amended. Taking into consideration the actual shortage of the medical practitioners in Rural area, even the persons who were not duly qualified but had long experience in practicing Indian Medicines were allowed to practice in Rural Areas subject to certain conditions. However, it was found that these provisions were being misused and quacks had entered in this practice and did not serve any purpose of providing medical aid and further because the provisions of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Act were also in conflict with Section 17 of the Central Act, Section 37 has been deleted by Amendment of 2005. It is contended that no fundamental right or legal right of the petitioners are violated or breached by the provisions of either Central Act or the Maharashtra Act as amended, and therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

7. There is no dispute that the basic object of the Central Act is to regulate minimum qualifications for practicing in Indian Medicines and to evolve uniform standards of education and in registration of practitioners of the Indian Medicines, throughout the country. The purpose is to ensure that unqualified persons are not allowed to practice in this field. The scheme of the Act as far as it is relevant for the purpose of these petitions may be stated in brief. The important definitions of Section 2(1) of the Central Act are as follows:

(ii) So long as he continues to practice in that village as his principal place of practice .

It is true that in far off trible or rural areas where no sufficient medical facilities was available under Section 37, the person who had some experience in medical practice was allowed to practice in the villages provided before they commence the practice in the particular village, there was no registered medical practitioner under the Bombay Medical Act, 1952, the Bombay Medical Practitioners Act, 1938 or the Bombay Homeopathic Act, 1951. It is contended that by deleting this section from the Act, not only these petitioners are deprived of their right of practice and earning of livelihood, but large number of villagers are also deprived of medical facilities in such villages and therefore, the Amendment Act, 2005 is ultravires and bad in law. We do not find any substance in this contention also. According to the State, it has become necessary to delete this section because it was being misused by the quacks and it is also inconsistent with the specific provisions of Section 17 of the Central Act. Because of the inconsistency, the Maharashtra Act was repugnant to the Central Legislation to that extent. Therefore, Section 37 itself was bad in law and unconstitutional. It is also contended that it is a matter of policy decision of the State Government and this Court cannot hold the amendment as invalid merely because the rights of certain unqualified persons to practice are taken away. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health, Delhi Admn. Services and Ors. . In para 6, Supreme Court observed as follows:

29. It is a general argument on behalf of all the petitioners by putting unreasonable restrictions etc. on their practice their fundamental rights under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution to practice any profession is violated. This argument has no force in view of Article 19 Clause (6) which clearly provides that in the interest of general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1)(g) may be imposed and particularly nothing shall prevent the State from making any law relating to the professionals or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business. Prescribing necessary qualification for medical practice is necessary in the interest of general public. At the same time registration of medical practitioners is also necessary to stop or prevent illegal practice and to save the public at large from quacks or unqualified persons, who was cause danger to their lives. Therefore the restrictions imposed by the Central Act as well as State Act are justified and are protected under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Having carefully considered the relevant provisions in the Central Act as well as Maharashtra Act, we do not find any of the provisions suffering from any illegality, repugnancy or violation of any constitutional provisions.