AYURVEDIC ENLISTED DOCTOR'S ASSON., MUMBAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 27-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 840 
... 
A 
AYURVEDIC ENLISTED DOCTOR'S ASSON., MUMBAI 
4-
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 2007) 
B 
FEBRUARY 27, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.) 
• 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1)(g), 19(6) -
c Right to practice - Registered practitioners - Non-inclusion 
of name in Central Register - Name included in the register 
of a particular State - Held: Right to practice is restricted in 
view of s.29 of 1970 Act - Only if name finds place in the 
Central Register, right to practice in any part of the country 
D exist - In terms of Article 19(6), reasonable restriction can 
"' 
always be put on the exercise of right under Article 19(1)(g) -
Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 - s.17(3A) -
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - s.29. 
E 
The writ petitions were filed by degree/diploma 
holders of Vaidya Visharad/Ayurved Ratna and by those 
practising in Ayurved for a long period. Their names were 
included in the Bihar State Register. Their claim was that 
though they did not hold any degree or diploma or 
• 
F 
certificate of any recognized institution, they possessed 
sufficient knowledge and skill requisite for educational 
practice of medicines, surgery and acquired certain 
amount of eminence in the medical science and they were 
practicising in different places mostly in rural places of 
Maharashtra and so as a matter of right entitled to be 
G included in the Central Register and entitled to practice 
in any part of the country. Writ petitions were dismissed. 
., . 
... 
Hence the appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
840 
AYURVEDICENLISTEDOOCTOR'SASSON., MUMBAI v. STATE 841 
OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
HELD: 1. The appellant's claim that once the name 
A 
is included in the register of a particular State there is a 
right to practice in any part of the country is not tenable 
on the face of Section 29 of the Indian Medicine Central 
Council Act, 1970. The right to practice is restricted in the 
sense that only if the name finds place in the Central 
B 
Register then the question of practising in any part of the 
country arise. The conditions under Section 23 of the 
Central Act are cumulative. Since the appellants 
undisputedly do not possess recognized medical 
qualifications as defined in Section 2(1)(h) their names c 
cannot be included in the Central Register. As a 
consequence, they cannot practice in any part of India 
in terms of Section 29 because of non-inclusion of their 
names in the Central Register. Section 17(3A) of the 
Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 refers to 
0 
Section 23 of the Central Act relating to Central Register. 
Section 17(1) relates to the register for the State. It is for 
the State to see that there is need for having qualification 
in terms of Second and Fourth Schedule. In terms of 
Article 19(6) of the Constitution, reasonable restriction 
E 
can always be put on the exercise of right under Article 
19(1)(g). [Para 8) [854-E-H; 855-A] 
Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy v. State of Kerela and Ors. (1992) 
3 SCC 147 and Udai Singh Dagar v. Union of India (2007) 
10 SCC 306, referred to 
F 
2. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Central Act, 
only envisages that where before the enactment of the 
said Central Act, on the basis of requisite qualification 
which was then recognised, a person got himself G 
registered as medical practitioner in the disciplines 
• 
contemplated under the said Act or in the absence of any 
requirement for registration such person had been 
practicising for five years or intended to be -registered 
and was also entitled to be registered, the right of such 
H 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A person to practise in the discipline concerned including 
the privileges of a registered medical practitioner stood 
protected even though such practitioner did not possess 
requisite qualification under the said Act of 1970. [Para 
10] (856-E-H; 857-A] 
B 
Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. 
Director of Health, Delhi Admn. Services and Ors. (1997) 11 
sec 687, relied on. 
3. The High Court was justified in dismissing the writ 
C petitions. However, the prosecution was lodged in terms 
of Section 33 for alleged violation of provisions of the 
Maharashtra Act. Considering the peculiar facts of the 
case it is directed, that the prosecution shall not be 
continued in respect of the past infractions. However, in 
D future, it is open to the aut

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.