Professional qualification rules for veterinary practice upheld as reasonable, while limited protection remained for existing service holders.

Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 was upheld as a valid and reasonable restriction on the right to practise, because prescribing professional qualifications for veterinary practice was treated as a permissible measure in the interest of the general public under Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6). The Court also held that the repeal-and-saving clause in Section 67 did not preserve a general right of practice for diploma and certificate holders once the Central Act imposed a new qualification structure. However, persons already in State, semi-government or local authority service were not to be ousted merely by the change, and could continue in service within the notified scope of minor veterinary services.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, which requires registration and prescribes qualifications for veterinary practice, is constitutionally valid and enforceable as a restriction on the right to practise a profession; (ii) whether the repeal and saving clause in Section 67 preserves the rights of diploma and certificate holders registered under the State enactments to continue practising or to continue in service.

Issue (i): Whether Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, which requires registration and prescribes qualifications for veterinary practice, is constitutionally valid and enforceable as a restriction on the right to practise a profession.

Analysis: The provision was examined in the setting of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The Court held that prescribing professional qualifications is a recognised form of legislative regulation in the interest of the general public. Veterinary practice was treated as a field capable of regulation, and the Central Act was viewed as laying down a higher qualification for the profession and for public service posts. The availability of qualified graduates, the changing professional environment, and the legislative policy behind the Central enactment were treated as sufficient to justify the restriction. The Court also held that the validity of the law had to be tested in the then prevailing social conditions and that the restriction imposed was reasonable.

Conclusion: Section 30 was upheld as a valid and reasonable restriction. The challenge to its constitutionality failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the repeal and saving clause in Section 67 preserves the rights of diploma and certificate holders registered under the State enactments to continue practising or to continue in service.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is attracted only where no different intention appears. Reading Section 67 of the Central Act with the scheme of the legislation, the Court found a clear legislative intention to replace the earlier regime and to require compliance with the new qualifications. The right to practise veterinary medicine as earlier enjoyed by diploma and certificate holders was held not to survive once the Central Act imposed the new qualification structure. At the same time, the Court recognised a distinction between private practice and existing employment: those already in the service of the State, semi-government bodies or local authorities could not be ousted merely by the change in qualification, especially where the State had issued notifications identifying minor veterinary services under Section 30(b).

Conclusion: The saving clause did not preserve a general right of practice for unqualified diploma or certificate holders, but existing employees were entitled to continue in service subject to the notified scope of minor veterinary services.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge and the broad claim to continue practising failed, but limited protection was preserved for persons already in service, and the proceeding was dismissed with those qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: A statute may validly prescribe higher professional qualifications in the interest of the general public, and a repeal-and-saving clause does not preserve an earlier right where the later enactment manifests a contrary intention and expressly abrogates the prior right to practise.

---