DR. MUKHTIAR CHAND AND ORS. ETC. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 08-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. MUKHTIAR CHAND AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 : 
A 
B 
Ss. 33(/) and 2(e), 18, 6 and 12-Rule making power-Scope of-Rule C 
2(ee) (iii) defining "Medical Practitioner "-Whether· beyond legislative 
competence of rule making authority and invalid-Held, No, Sec. 33 of the 
Act confers wide power on Central Government to make rules-Rule 2 (ee) 
(iii) was well within the scope of said power-Thus, does not suffer from want 
of legislative competence and valid 
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945: 
Rule 2(ee) (iii)-Defining "Medical Practitioner"-Constitutional 
validity of-Held; intra vires the constitution-Constitution of lndia, 1950. 
D 
Rule 2(ee) (iii)-Medical practitioner-Notification dated 29./0.1967 E 
and Circular dated 26.7.1982 issued by State Governments declaring Vaids/ 
Hakims registered under State Register as persons practising modern Scientific 
system of Medicine-Validity of-Held, intra vires as they were well within 
the confines of clause 2(ee) (iii) of the Rule. 
Medical Council Act, 1956 : 
Ss. 15(2) (as inserted by Act 24 of 1964)-Indian Medicine Central 
Council Act, 1970-Section 17(2) and (3) (b)-Medica/ Practitioner in 
lndian System of Medicine-Enrolled on State Register or Central Register 
F 
of lndian Medicine-Claim to practice modern system of Medicine-Scope 
of-Held, not entitled unless he is registered under the State Medical G 
Register-Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 
Sec. 2(4)-Medical practitioner-Registration-"Recognised medical 
qualification"-Necessity of-Held, only a prerequisite/or enrolling in Indian 
Medical Register but not for registration in State Medical Register. 
143 
H 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Medical Practitioner-Right to prescribe drugs of a system of Medicine--
Held, is synonymous with and not independent of right to practice that 
system-Constitution of India, 1950--Article 19(1) (g). 
Words & Phrases: 
B 
"Registered Medical Practitioner-Meaning and scope of in the context 
of Rule 2(ee) (iii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 
"Indian Medicine"-Meaning and scope of in the context of Section 
2(e) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. 
In exercise of the power under Rule 2(ee) (iii) of the Drugs and 
C Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the State Government issued Notification dated 
29.10.1967 and Circular dated 26.7.1982 declaring all the Vaids/Hakims 
registered in the State Medical register as persons practising Modern 
system of medicine for purposes of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 
1940. The High Court held the said Notification and Circular to be ultra 
D vires the said rule and also contrary to Medical Council Act, 1956. Further, 
High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Medical practitioners covered 
by the above notification for allowing them to prescribe and store allopathic 
medicines. Hence the present appeals. 
The appellants contended that rule 2(ee) (iii) cannot be said to be 
E illegal for want of legislative competence as section 33 of the Drugs Act 
confers wide powers on the Central Government to frame rules, the right of 
practitioners of Indian medicine to practise modern scientific system of 
Medicine was protected under section 17 (3) (b) oflndian Medicine Central 
Council Act, 1970, the integrated courses in Ayurvedic Medical education 
comprises ofvarious topics under modern medicine and when persons have 
F put in considerable years of practice covering such topics also, any infraction 
of their right to prescribe medicines falling under the Drugs Act would very 
adversely affect the areas where they were mostly serving. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. Rule 2(ee) (iii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 does 
not suffer from the vice of want of the legislative competence and is not ultra 
vires the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. (168-F) 
1.2. The Drugs Act was enacted with a view to regulate the import, 
manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs and Section 33 of the said Act 
H confers wide power on the Central Government to make rules. Drugs can be 
DR. MUKHTIAR CHAND v. STATE 
145 
sold or supplied by pharmacist or druggist only on the prescription of a A. 
'registered medical practitioner' who can also store them for treatment of 
his patients. It has, therefore, became necessary for the rule- making 
authority to define the expre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.