Tenure holdover clauses may be read as temporary safeguards against vacancy, with timely elections required to prevent indefinite continuance.

A statutory tenure clause allowing members to continue in office until successors are duly elected or nominated was construed as a stopgap measure to prevent a vacancy in the functioning of the Central Council, not as permission for indefinite continuance. Applying the presumption of constitutionality and a construction that gives the provision practical effect, the Court found no violation of Articles 14 and 16 and rejected the constitutional challenge. It also interpreted the statutory scheme to require timely elections within the five-year term, and in exceptional cases, completion within three months after expiry, to prevent perpetual holdover and secure regular constitution of the Council.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the last part of Section 7 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, which permits continuation in office until a successor is duly elected or nominated, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether directions should issue to ensure timely elections and filling of vacancies in the Central Council within a prescribed outer limit.

Issue (i): Whether the last part of Section 7 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, which permits continuation in office until a successor is duly elected or nominated, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned words were construed as a safeguard against a vacuum in the functioning of the statutory body and not as a licence for indefinite continuance in office. The provision was held to operate only to meet an interregnum between expiry of the prescribed term and assumption of office by duly elected or nominated successors. Applying the presumption of constitutionality and the principle that a statute should be construed to make it effective and operative, the Court found no infringement of equality guarantees. The earlier Constitution Bench view on an identical tenure clause in the dental law was followed.

Conclusion: The challenge to Section 7 failed. The provision was held to be neither ultra vires nor violative of Articles 14 and 16.

Issue (ii): Whether directions should issue to ensure timely elections and filling of vacancies in the Central Council within a prescribed outer limit.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 3, 4 and 7 required elections to be held within the five-year tenure and, if exceptional circumstances prevented that, within a reasonable time thereafter. The Court held that neither the Government nor the Council could defer elections indefinitely and that the absence of an express outer limit could be addressed by judicial interpretation to effectuate the legislative object. To prevent the continuation from becoming perpetual, a three-month period after expiry of the term was treated as sufficient in exceptional cases.

Conclusion: Directions were issued requiring the Central Government to hold elections within the five-year term and, in exceptional cases, to complete the process within three months after expiry of the term.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only in part: the constitutional challenge was rejected, but binding directions were issued to ensure timely constitution of the Central Council and to limit post-expiry continuance to a short reasonable period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory tenure clause is designed to avoid a vacuum in office, the court may construe the provision as permitting only a stopgap continuation for a reasonable time and may issue consequential directions to ensure timely elections, without striking down the clause as unconstitutional.

---