KERALA AYURVEDA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA FORUM versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 13-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
KERALA AYURVEDA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA FORUM
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2009)
APRIL 13, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 – s.38
and ss.23, 32– Appellant-association consisting of ‘Paramparya
Vaidyas’ who have been practicing in Siddha/Unani/Ayurveda system
of medicine and passing their knowledge and experience to their
descendants by way of training and practice – Under the 1953 Act,
Paramparya Vaidyas were debarred from practicing modern/
homeopathic/ayurvedic/siddha/unani-tibbi medicines unless
registered under the Act – Challenged by appellant, dismissed by
High Court – Held: Right to practice any profession or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business is a fundamental right guaranteed
under the Constitution – But that right is subject to any law relating
to the professional or technical qualification necessary for
practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation/trade/
business – Every practitioner is deemed to be a practitioner
registered under the 1953 Act if at the commencement of the Act, his
name stands entered in the appropriate register and every certificate
of registration issued to every such practitioner shall be deemed to
be a certificate of registration issued under the 1953 Act – But in
the present case, the appellants have failed to show that they
possessed requisite recognized qualification for registration entitling
them to practice Indian system of medicines or their names have
been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement
of the 1953 Act – High Court was right in dismissing the petitions
filed by the appellants – Constitution of India – VIIth Schedule, List
III, Entry 26 – Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 – s.17 –
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Homeopathy Central Council
Act, 1973.
Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 – Object
of – Discussed.
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 566
 566
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
567
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 – s.17(3)(c) –
Exemption under, when available – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1  The Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners
Act, 1953 was enacted with an object to regulate the qualifications
and provide for the registration of practitioners of modern
medicine and to enact a law relating to medical practitioners
generally in the State of Travancore-Cochin. [Para 9] [573-F]
1.2 The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 does
not contemplate any exemption from the provisions in the Act
regarding qualification or registration of practitioners in the
various branches of indigenous medicine, viz., ayurveda, siddha,
unani etc.  However, Section 17(3)(c) of the IMCC Act has a
provision for protecting persons who had been practicing Indian
system of Medicine for at least five years as on the date of
commencement of the Act. Such persons could continue their
practice provided there had been no State Register maintained
in the State on the commencement of the IMCC Act. [Para 11]
[577-B]
1.3 Section 23 of the 1953 Act provides for eligibility
conditions for registration of medical practitioners. Under sub-
Section (1), a holder of a recognized qualification or holding
appointment under the government at the commencement of the
Act and every other practitioner who has been in regular practice
for 5 (five) years preceding 1st April, 1953, if applies within one
year, have been made eligible for registration.  However, by
Section 38 of the 1953 Act, persons not registered under the Act
have been prohibited from practicing various types of medicines.
The first proviso empowers the State Government to exempt
any person or class of persons from undergoing registration.
[Para 12] [581-D-E]
1.4  The capacity to diagnose the disease would depend
upon the fact as to whether the practitioner had the necessary
professional skill to do so. Acquisition of professional skill is again
a regulated subject and the measure thereof is the possession of
a prescribed Diploma or Degree awarded by a recognized
KERALA AYURVEDA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA FORUM v.
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
Institution.  Admittedly, the appellants do not possess any
prescribed Diploma or Degree from a recognized institution for
that purpose. Even a person who has acquired the prescribed
Diploma or Degree from a recognized institution would not 

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