Home  |  News  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us  |  Login
Advertise With Us
Latest Notification
  • banner1
  • banner2
  • banner3
  • banner4
  • banner5
  • banner6
  • banner7
banner11 banner22 banner33 banner44 banner45 banner46 banner47

 Case Digest


Back
Constitution of India
Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 19(6) - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 - Right to practice in medical sciences
Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 19(6) - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 - Right to practice in medical sciences
Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 is not violative of art. 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 - Writ petition was filed seeking a restrain order to those who obtained the degree/certificate of "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 to practice as Vaidyas and further to delete their names from the register so maintained under the Act 1953 - HC held persons who did not possess requisite qualification prescribed under Schedule II, III and IV of the Act 1970 were not eligible to practice medicines - Present appeals - (A) Whether persons who hold either the degree or diploma of "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad which are not included as recognized qualification in Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 have a right to practice in medical sciences? - Held, right to practice u/art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute - By virtue of the provisions of Clause (6) to art. 19 reasonable restrictions can be imposed - Court has a duty to strike a balance between the right of a Vaidya to practice, particularly, when he does not possess the requisite qualification and the right of a "little Indian" guaranteed u/art. 21 of the Constitution which includes the protection and safeguarding the health and life of a public at large from mal-medical treatment - In the present case, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed University nor an Educational Board - It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act - It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field - It had no affiliated colleges - It merely conducts the examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some elementary/basic education or has attended classes in Ayurveda in any recognized college - A person who acquired the certificate, degree or diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 is not eligible to indulge in any kind of a medical practice - (B) Validity of the cut-off date "1967 in Entry No.105" to Schedule II - Whether cut off date i.e. 1967 as per Entry No.105 in the Second Schedule of the Act,1970 is arbitrary and thus, liable to be quashed? - Held, under the then prevailing rules, certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag remained recognised only upto 1967 and Authorities under the Statute had taken a decision not to recognise the said courses any further - In such a fact-situation, the said cut-off date cannot be termed as arbitrary - Further, it is not a cut-off date fixed by the Statutory Authority rather a date, after which the qualification in question was not recognised - (C) Whether restriction imposed under the Act 1970 from practicing, unless names appear in the Central Register, is violative of art. 14 of the Constitution with reference to the State Act? - Held, after commencement of Act, 1970, a person not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice - Hence, mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice - Further, right to practice u/art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided u/art. 19(6) of the Constitution - Therefore, restriction on practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of art. 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act - Observation made by HC to the extent that persons who possessed the certificate upto 1.10.1976 i.e. the date on which the provisions of s. 17 had been enforced in the State of Rajasthan were permitted to practice set aside - Appeals disposed of.
Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 5324 of 2007, D/d 02/06/2010

Back


» Home
» Latest Notification
» New Drugs
» Import of Drugs
» Drug Prices
» Legislations
» Applications Forms
» Quackwatch
» Forms & Fees
» Licence Conditions
» Schedules
» Health, Pharma. Policies & Reports
» Ayurvedic
» Govt. Bodies
» Information Centre
» Directory
» Alert
» Regulatory News
» Research News
» News in Hindi
» Login
» Contact Us

Copyright © DrugsControl.org - Jaipur, INDIA. All Rights Reserved   |   Disclaimer   |   Sitemap

Site last updated: December 30, 1899 at