Court Upholds Indian Veterinary Council Act, Validates Higher Qualifications for Veterinary Practice in Public Interest.

The court dismissed the writ petition and civil appeal, affirming the constitutionality and applicability of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (Central Act). It upheld the Act's higher qualification requirements for veterinary practice as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, emphasizing public interest and professional standards. The Central Act supersedes the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971, restricting practice to those with recognized qualifications. Non-graduate practitioners in government or semi-government service may continue under specified conditions, ensuring compliance with the Central Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality and applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.
2. Rights of non-graduate veterinary practitioners registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971.
3. Impact of Section 67 of the Central Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act on accrued rights.
4. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality and Applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984:

The constitutionality and applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (Central Act) were challenged. The Central Act, enacted to regulate veterinary practice, established the Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils, maintaining registers of veterinary practitioners. Section 30 restricts the practice of veterinary medicine to registered veterinary practitioners and allows state governments to permit diploma or certificate holders to render minor veterinary services under supervision. The court upheld these provisions, stating they constitute a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution and are presumed to be in the public interest.

2. Rights of Non-Graduate Veterinary Practitioners Registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971:

Non-graduate veterinary practitioners registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 (State Act) contested their right to practice post the enforcement of the Central Act. The petitioners argued that their fundamental right to practice veterinary medicine under Article 19(1)(g) was infringed. The court noted that the Central Act supersedes the State Act, and only those with recognized veterinary qualifications could practice. The court emphasized that the Central Act's higher qualification requirements are in the public interest and necessary for maintaining professional standards.

3. Impact of Section 67 of the Central Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act on Accrued Rights:

The petitioners argued that Section 67 of the Central Act, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, protects their accrued rights to practice. Section 67 repeals state laws inconsistent with the Central Act, while Section 6 preserves rights and liabilities accrued under repealed laws. The court clarified that Section 6 applies unless a different intention appears in the new Act. Since the Central Act explicitly restricts practice to those with recognized qualifications, the petitioners' right to practice was not preserved. The court held that the Central Act's intention was to establish new standards, making Section 6 inapplicable.

4. Reasonableness of Restrictions Imposed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:

The court examined whether the restrictions imposed by the Central Act on non-graduate practitioners were reasonable under Article 19(1)(g). The Central Act's higher qualification requirements were deemed reasonable and necessary for public interest, ensuring competent veterinary services. The court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that professional qualifications can be regulated by law. The court concluded that the restrictions were reasonable, aligning with the general public interest, and upheld the Central Act's provisions.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition and civil appeal, affirming the Central Act's constitutionality and applicability. It upheld the higher qualification requirements for veterinary practice, emphasizing public interest and professional standards. The court recognized the need for flexibility in the Central Act, allowing future recognition of additional qualifications. Non-graduate practitioners in government or semi-government service were allowed to continue under specified conditions, ensuring compliance with the Central Act's provisions.

---