Recognised medical qualification controls practice in Indian medicine; State registration cannot override the central statutory scheme.

Persons holding Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna certificates issued after 1967 could not claim a right to practise Indian medicine unless they possessed a recognised qualification under the central statutory scheme. The 1967 cut-off in Entry No. 105 was treated as a recognition boundary, not an arbitrary restriction, because recognition had ceased from that point and later inclusion was not sought through the statutory mechanism. Registration in the State Register, or any inconsistent privilege under the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953, could not override the central Act. The central qualification regime therefore prevailed, and the challenge based on Articles 14 and 19 failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether holders of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag/Allahabad after 1967 had a right to practice medicine; (ii) whether the cut-off year 1967 in Entry No. 105 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 was arbitrary; (iii) whether enrolment in the State Register or the provisions of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 could override the requirements of the central enactment.

Issue (i): whether holders of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag/Allahabad after 1967 had a right to practice medicine.

Analysis: The governing scheme under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 permits practice only by persons possessing recognised medical qualifications included in the relevant Schedules. The record showed that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was only a registered society, not a recognised educational institution, university, or board, and that it did not impart structured medical education, maintain affiliated colleges, or demonstrate recognised standards of training. The protection under the saving provision could not assist persons whose certificates were obtained after the period for which the qualification remained recognised. Mere inclusion in a State Register did not create an independent right to practice when the central statute imposed contrary eligibility requirements.

Conclusion: Holders of such certificates obtained after 1967 were not entitled to practice medical systems covered by the Act.

Issue (ii): whether the cut-off year 1967 in Entry No. 105 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 was arbitrary.

Analysis: The cut-off did not represent an unexplained legislative prohibition imposed without basis. It reflected the point up to which the certificates had been recognised, and the material showed that the concerned society never sought recognition of later certificates under the statutory mechanism for inclusion in the Schedule. In that background, the year 1967 was treated as a recognition boundary, not an arbitrary restraint. The existence of a statutory route for recognition and amendment further negatived the plea of arbitrariness.

Conclusion: The cut-off year 1967 was not arbitrary and was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether enrolment in the State Register or the provisions of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 could override the requirements of the central enactment.

Analysis: The central enactment prescribed the qualifying standard for practice and enrollment for the purposes of Indian medicine. Any privilege under the State Act, to the extent inconsistent with the central law, stood overridden by virtue of constitutional repugnancy. The right to practice was subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public and the protection of public health. Consequently, registration under the State regime could not validate practice by a person lacking the recognised qualification under the central statute.

Conclusion: The State Act and State Register could not confer a right to practice contrary to the central Act; the challenge based on Articles 14 and 19 failed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirmed the primacy of the central statutory qualification regime for Indian medicine, rejected the challenge to the 1967 recognition boundary, and confined the right to practice to persons holding recognised qualifications under the central law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a central statute prescribes recognised qualifications for practice in a regulated medical system, persons lacking those qualifications cannot claim a right to practice merely on the basis of State registration or inconsistent State-law privileges, and a recognition cut-off tied to the period of statutory recognition is not arbitrary.

---