2010 (6) TMI 891 - SC - Indian Laws

Restriction on Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag degrees for medical practice upheld as valid

Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The court held that individuals with degrees from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag obtained post-1967 are not entitled to practice medicine. The cut-off date ... - Issues Involved:1. Right to practice for holders of 'Vaidya Visharad' or 'Ayurved Ratna' degrees from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad.2. Validity of the cut-off date (1967) in Entry No. 105 of the Second Schedule of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.3. Constitutionality of restrictions imposed by the Central Act on practicing without being listed in the Central Register in light of Article 14 of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Right to Practice for Holders of 'Vaidya Visharad' or 'Ayurved Ratna' Degrees:- The court examined whether individuals with degrees from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad, which are not recognized under Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Act 1970), have the right to practice medicine.- The Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 (Act 1953) initially recognized these degrees for practicing as Vaidyas in Rajasthan.- Section 17 of Act 1970, enforced in Rajasthan from 1.10.1976, stipulated that only qualifications listed in the Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules of Act 1970 are valid for medical practice, with an exception for those practicing before the Act's commencement.- The court found that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag is not a recognized educational institution, university, or board. It is merely a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and does not have affiliated colleges or provide proper education.- The court held that without proper recognition, degrees from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag do not qualify individuals to practice medicine.2. Validity of the Cut-off Date (1967):- The cut-off date '1967' in Entry No. 105 of the Second Schedule of Act 1970 was challenged as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.- The court noted that the cut-off date was based on information provided by the State Government and reflected the period during which the degrees were recognized.- The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag did not apply for recognition of its qualifications post-1967 under Section 14(2) of Act 1970, which would have allowed for an amendment in the Schedule.- The court concluded that the cut-off date is not arbitrary as it indicates the period during which the qualifications were recognized. The society's failure to seek recognition post-1967 justifies the cut-off date.3. Constitutionality of Restrictions Imposed by the Central Act:- The appellants argued that restrictions on practicing without being listed in the Central Register violate Article 14 of the Constitution and are arbitrary.- The court emphasized that the right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).- The court held that the restriction requiring qualifications listed in Schedule II, III, and IV of Act 1970 for medical practice is reasonable and not violative of Article 14.- The court also noted that the Act 1953's provisions, if repugnant to Act 1970, cannot prevail due to Article 254 of the Constitution.Conclusion:- The court concluded that individuals holding degrees from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag post-1967 are not entitled to practice medicine.- The cut-off date '1967' in Entry No. 105 of the Second Schedule is valid and not arbitrary.- Restrictions imposed by Act 1970 are reasonable and not violative of Article 14 or any other statutory provisions.Judgment:- Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21043 of 2008 is allowed, affirming that degrees obtained after 1967 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag are not valid for medical practice.- All other Civil Appeals are dismissed. No costs.