2007 (5) TMI 627 - SC - Indian Laws

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

Udai Singh Dagar & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.

The court dismissed the writ petition and civil appeal, affirming the constitutionality and applicability of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 ... Qualifications of the Veterinary practitioners - Constitutionality and/ or applicability of the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 ('the Central Act') - declaration that the non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who are registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 ('the State Veterinary Act') are eligible to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner and on such conditions as they were prior to coming into force of the Central Veterinary Act in the State of Maharashtra - HELD THAT:- The State of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 26th August, 1997 in terms of Section 30 of the Central Act specifying minor veterinary services to be rendered by the Veterinary Science Certificate or Diploma holders in the Government Service or in Semi-Government organizations. Such qualifications had been laid down by the State Act. If by reason of the Central Act, a higher qualification has been laid down, the same, in our opinion, would prima facie be presumed to have been enacted in the interest of the general public. We have noticed, that it has been conceded before us and, in our opinion, rightly so, that the provisions contained in Section 30 of the Central Act constitute a reasonable restriction within the meaning of the first part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India and the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) thereof. Veterinary services in terms of the Central Act is in two parts (1) veterinary services and (2) minor veterinary services. What would be the minor veterinary services has been laid down by reason of a notification issued by the respective State Governments in exercise of their power under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Once such a notification has been issued, indisputably, those who are not otherwise entitled to resort to veterinary practices within the meaning of the Central Act can be asked to perform the jobs of minor veterinary services. A distinction exists between a repeal simpliciter and a repeal by an Act which is substituted by another Act. We are not beset with such a situation in the instant case. The right of the petitioners to practise in the field of veterinary practice has expressly been taken away. When such a right has been taken away upon laying down an essential qualification therefor which the petitioners admittedly do not possess, the right of the petitioners to continue to practice despite the fact that they do not fulfill the criteria laid down under the Parliamentary Act or the Central Act would not survive. The expression 'unless a different intention appears' contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, thus, in this case, would be clearly attracted. A right whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right can be held to be protected provided the right survives. If the right itself does not survive and either expressly or by necessary implication it stands abrogated, the question of applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not arise at all. [See Bansidhar and Others v. State of Rajasthan [1989 (3) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT] and Thyssen Stahlunion Gmbh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.[1999 (10) TMI 636 - SUPREME COURT]] We are of the opinion that those who are in service of the State or the semi-government or local self government organizations must be held to have a right to continue in service. The employees of the State enjoy a status. A person who enjoys a status can be deprived therefrom only in accordance with law having regard to the nature of right conferred on him under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The law in this behalf, in our opinion, is clear. Their nature of duty may change but they would be otherwise entitled to continue in service. The State of Maharashtra or for that matter even the other States have issued notification (s) in terms of clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Minor veterinary services, therefore, having been specified in terms of the said notification, those certificate holders who are in the services of the State or the other semi-government organizations are entitled to continue in service, subject of course to, carrying out their duties strictly in terms of the notification issued by the State under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. In the event, any State has not issued such a notification, they may do so. Thus, the writ petition and the civil appeal are dismissed. 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.