2007 (5) TMI 627 - SC - Indian Laws

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 ... Constitutionality and applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 - Right to practise as a profession under Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) - Effect of repeal and savings; application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act - Protection of existing entries in State and Central veterinary registers - State notification of minor veterinary services under clause (b) of Section 30 - Registration and regulatory control through subordinate legislation and purposive construction - Employment protection of State employees under Article 311Constitutionality and applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 - Right to practise as a profession under Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) - Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 constitutes a constitutionally valid and reasonable restriction on the right to practise veterinary profession under Article 19(1)(g). - HELD THAT: - The Court held that qualifications laid down by the Central Act fall within the scope of Clause (6) of Article 19 and are prima facie enactments in the interests of the general public. The inquiry whether a restriction is reasonable is to be conducted in the context of prevailing conditions and legislative judgment; where Parliament prescribes higher qualifications for veterinary practice to meet contemporary needs, that prescription is presumptively in public interest. The Court accepted the view that Section 30's curtailment of practice by persons lacking recognised veterinary qualifications is a permissible legislative measure to maintain professional standards and public welfare, and that Article 19(6) affords a broader margin to legislative action in this field. [Paras 51]Section 30 is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) and is constitutionally valid.Effect of repeal and savings; application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act - Protection of existing entries in State and Central veterinary registers - Section 67 (repeal and saving) of the Central Act does not automatically operate to preserve the State Act's recognition of diploma/certificate holders where the new Act manifests a different intention; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is not applicable when a different intention appears in the new statute. - HELD THAT: - The Court emphasised the established principle that on repeal and re-enactment the applicability of savings under the General Clauses Act depends on whether the new enactment manifests an intention incompatible with preservation of prior rights. Here the Central Act, by prescribing recognised veterinary qualifications for entry in the Central register, manifests an intention incompatible with unrestricted continuance of practice by persons lacking the prescribed qualifications. Consequently, rights of persons who do not satisfy the Central Act's qualification criteria are not preserved by operation of Section 6 where the new law indicates a contrary intention. The Court distinguished between crystallised vested rights and rights that depend upon compliance with statutory registration conditions, holding that the latter do not survive if the new statute abrogates them. [Paras 58, 69, 70, 71]Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve a right to practise for diploma/certificate holders who do not meet the Central Act's qualification requirements; the Central Act's intention to displace prior inconsistent provisions governs.Registration and regulatory control through subordinate legislation and purposive construction - Certificate/diploma holders do not acquire a vested entitlement to registration or to practice merely by holding an educational qualification; registration is conditional and governed by the State regulations (Regulation 3) and must be given a purposive construction. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that Conditions for registration under the State regulations required fulfilment of criteria beyond mere possession of a certificate; therefore absence of compliance precludes any accrued right to have one's name entered on the State (or Central) register. A person whose name is not on the register lacks the statutory status that would enable disciplinary control or confer rights to practice or appointment. The Court applied purposive construction to uphold the role of subordinate legislation in implementing the Act's registration scheme and rejected the contention that non-application or delay entitled certificate holders to a protected right to registration. [Paras 76, 80]No vested right to registration or practice arises solely from possession of a certificate or diploma in the absence of compliance with statutory registration conditions.State notification of minor veterinary services under clause (b) of Section 30 - Employment protection of State employees under Article 311 - Certificate/diploma holders who are already in the service of the State, semi-government or local bodies are entitled to continue in service and, where States have issued notifications under clause (b) of Section 30, may lawfully perform specified minor veterinary services subject to the terms of such notifications. - HELD THAT: - The Court recognised the distinction between the general right to practise and the status of persons already employed by the State or public bodies. Employees enjoy protection of their service status and can be deprived of it only in accordance with law and constitutional safeguards (Article 311). Consequently, those presently in service retain the right to continue, though their duties may be confined to the minor veterinary services specified by state notifications under clause (b) of Section 30; States which have not yet issued such notifications were directed that they may do so to define permissible functions. [Paras 81]Existing State or public-service employees holding certificate/diploma qualifications may continue in service and, where applicable, render minor veterinary services as specified by State notifications under Section 30(b).Final Conclusion: The writ petitions and the civil appeal are dismissed. Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 is constitutionally valid as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6); the General Clauses Act does not preserve unqualified rights to practise where the Central Act manifests a contrary intention; registration requirements under State regulations determine entitlement to practice; however, certificate/diploma holders who are already in State or public service may continue in service and may perform minor veterinary services as permitted by State notifications. 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.