Supreme Court of India
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 334
- Decided
- 1 June 2010
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
A person who does not possess a qualification enumerated in Schedule II, III or IV of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 cannot practice medicine, and the 1967 cut‑off in Entry 105 is a valid, non‑arbitrary limitation; thus the restriction is constitutionally permissible.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether holders of the "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag after 1967 could practice medicine under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and whether the cut‑off date of 1967 in Entry 105 of the Act’s Second Schedule was arbitrary. It held that the Society was not a recognised educational institution, that its certificates were only recognised up to 1967, and that no person lacking a qualification listed in Schedule II, III or IV of the 1970 Act is entitled to practice. The cut‑off date was deemed a factual limitation, not an arbitrary restriction, and the requirement of inclusion in the Central Register was a valid constitutional restriction under Article 19(6). Consequently, the appeal challenging the restriction was allowed, while other related appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether holders of "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, not listed in Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, have a right to practice medicine.
- Whether the cut‑off date of 1967 in Entry 105 of the Second Schedule of the Act is arbitrary and liable to be quashed.
- Whether the restriction on practice unless the name appears in the Central Register violates Article 14 of the Constitution in view of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 19(6), s. Article 21, s. Article 254
- Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970s. 14, s. 17(2), s. 17(3), s. 17(3A), s. 2(1)(h), s. 23, s. 29
- Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953s. 32
- Societies Registration Act
Subjects
Indian Medicine Central Council Actrecognitionmedical qualificationunrecognised institutioncut‑off dateArticle 19Article 14central registerstate registerAyurvedaVaidya VisharadAyurved Ratna
Judgment
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 252
A RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND
ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5324 of 2007)
B
JUNE 01, 2010
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Education/Educational institution:
c
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970:
ss.17(3) - Medical education - Degree/Diploma/
Certificate holder of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna from
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Al/ahabad - Held: Is not
D entitled to medical practice - Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act,
1953.
Second Schedule - Entry 105; ss. 14, 17 - Cut off date
of 196? in the said Entry, whether arbitrary - Held: The cut
E off date cannot be termed as arbitrary - The certificates issued
by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad were
recognised only upto 1967 - The Society never made an
attempt to get recognition after 1967 - In fact, it was not the
cut off date fixed by the statutory authorities, rather it indicated
F that such courses or certificates were not recognised after
1967.
Un-recognised institution - .Students of un-recognised
institution are not legally entitled to appear in any examination
conducted by any government, university or board.
G
Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953: s.32 - Restriction
to practice unless names entered in Central Register, not
violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the
H 252
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 253
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(6) - A
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1)(g), 19(6), 21 -
Right to practice - Held: Is not absolute - Restriction on
practice without possessing the requisite qualification 8
prescribed in Schedule II, Ill and IV of 1970 Act is not violative
of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the Act -
Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State
Register maintained under the State Act is not enough ,...
to make him eligible to practice - Indian Medicine Central ·...,
Council Act, 1970 - Schedule II, Ill and IV.
Pleadings: Incomplete pleadings - Held: Court is under
no obligation to entertain the pleas.
D
Words and phrases: Recognition - Meaning of.
The questions which arose for consideration in these
appeals were whether the persons holding either the
degree or diploma of "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved
Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan PrayaglAllahabad E
which were not included as recognized qualification in
Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act,
1970 have a right to practice in medical sciences;
whether the cut off date i.e. 1967 as per Entry Mo.105 in
the Second Schedule of the 1970 Act is arbitrary and F
liable to be quashed and whether the restriction imposed
under the Central Act from practicing, unless the names
appear in the Central Register, is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India with reference to the State Act.
G
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. There is nothing on record to show that
the persons who have acquired certificates from the
Hindu Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad, possess any
other academic qualification i.e. as to whether they have H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.
A passed matriculation or intermediate or they possess any
other qualification to make them eligible to apply for such
· certificate. Study of medical sciences require attendance
in the classes and a proper technical training under
competent faculty as they play an important role in
B maintaining the public health. There was nothing to show
that the educational institution where they were imparted
medical education was affiliated to University/Board and
as to whether such schools were ever accorded
recognition by the competent Statutory Authorities. A
c party has to plead the case and adduce sufficient
evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the
petition. In case the pleadings are not complete, the Court
is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In the
absence of any pleadings made by the appellants, it is
difficult to say that any of such persons possessed any
0
qualification making them eligible even to apply for such
certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag. [Paras
9-11, 15] [264-0, F-H; 265-A; 266-8]
Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. AIR 1988
E SC 2181; Mis. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction
Corporation v. S. Raghunathan & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2779;
Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 141;
Smt Chitra Kumari etc. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2001 SC
F 1237; State of UP. & Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors.
AIR 2001 SC 1298; Mis. Atu/ Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan
Singh AIR 2001 SC 1684; Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. v. Prakash
N. Rudrakar & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 18; Devasahayam (Dead)
by L.Rs. v. P. Savithramma & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 653; Sait
G Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhu/al & Ors.
(2005) 8 SCC 252; The Principal & Ors. v. The Presiding
Officer & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 344; Re : The Kera/a Education
Bill, 1957 AIR 1958 SC 956; TM.A Pai Foundation & Ors.v.
State of Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8 sec 481, relied on.
H 1.2. Students of a un-recognised institution cannot
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 255
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA
legally be entitled to. appear in any examination A
conducted by any government, university or board.
Similarly, recognition must be there with the school to
make it subject to the provisions of the Act. Recognition
signifies an admission or an acknowledgement of
something existing before. To recognize is to take B
cognizance of a fact. It implies an overt act on the part of
the person taking such cognizance. Any institution which
is not recognised cannot impart an education and
students thereof cannot appear in the examination held
by the government, university or Board. [Paras 18- 20) c
[267-A-F]
Minor Sunil Oraon Thr. Guardian & Ors. v. C.B.S.E. &
Ors. AIR 2007 SC 458; T. V. V. Narasimham & Ors. v. State
of Orissa AIR 1963 SC 1227; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v.
St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute & Anr. (1991) 3 SCC D
87, relied on.
1.3. As per Entry 66 of List I to the 7th Schedule of
the Constitution, the Parliament is competent to make
laws for determining standards of institution for higher E
education or research and scientific and technical
institutions. Such powers are also available with the
Parliament in view of Entries 25 and 26 of List Ill as it
includes the medical education. However, in view of Entry
6 of List II, the State Legislature is competent to make laws
pertaining to public health and sanitation, i.e. hospitals F
and dispensaries. Section 2(1)(h) of the Indian Medicine
Central Council Act, 1970 provides "recognised medical
qualification" as any of the medical qualifications
included in the II, Ill or IV Schedule to that Act. Section
14 of the 1970 Act provides a procedure for recognition G
of medical qualifications provided in rnedical institutions
in India and Section 17 provides for entitlement/eligibility
of persons possessing qualifications included in II, Ill and
IV Schedule to the Act to be enrolled for practice. [Para
21) [267-F-H; 268-A-B] H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.
A 2. Section 14(2) of the 1970 Act provides that any
University or Board/Medical Institution if wants to impart
medical education and has not been included in the
Second Schedule, may apply to the Central Government
for recognition of its medical qualification and to be
B incluJed in Second Schedule. If such an application Is
made, the Central Government is empowered to make
necessary amendment as and when required in the
Second Schedule, after considering the application.
Under the then prevailing rules, certificates issued by the
C Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag remained recognised
only upto 1967. The Authorities under the Statute, on the
report submitted by the State of U.P. had taken a decision
not to recognise the said courses any further. The
Society for the reasons best known to it never made an
attempt to get recognition after fulfilling the legal
0
requirements and getting the Entry No.105 in Second
Schedule of the Act, 1970, modified. In such a fact-
situation, even by stretch of imagination, the said cut-off
date cannot be termed as arbitrary. In fact it is not the cut-
off date fixed by the Statutory Authorities, rather it
E indicates that such "courses" or certificates had not been
recognised after 1967. [Paras 22 32, 33] [268-D-E; 272-B-
0]
Piamod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services
F Commission & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 153; Delhi Pradesh
Registered Medical Practitioners v. Delhi Admn. Director of
Health Services & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 67; Dr. Mukhtiar Chand
& Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 468; Vaid Brij
Bhushan Sharma v. Board of Ayur & Unani Systems, Med.
G & Anr. SLP(C) No.22124 of 2002 decided by Supreme
Court on 2.12.2002; Udai Singh Dagar & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 306; Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctor's
Assn. Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2009) 3 SCR
840, relied on.
H UmaKant Tiwari & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2003) 4
RAJASTHAN ·.PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 257 .
.· . ANR. v: UNION OF INDIA
AWC 3016; Dr. Vijay Kvmar Gupta & Ors. v. State of UP. & . A
Ors. (1999) AWC 1783; Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State
of UP, & Ors. (1999) 2 UPLB.EC 1063; Virender Lal Vaishya
v. Union of India & Ors. 2003 (2) Mah.LJ 64; Charan Singh
& Ors. .v. State of UP. & Ors. AIR 2004 All. 373, approved.
B
3. It is evident that right to practice under Article
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution is not absolute. By virtue of
the provisions of Clause (6) to Article 19, reasonable
restrictions can be imposed. The Court has a duty to
strike a balance between the right of a Vaidya to practice, C
particularly, when he does not possess the requisite
qualification and the right of a "little Indian" guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution which includes the
protection and safeguarding the health and life of a ·
public at large from mal-medical treatment. An
unqualified, unregistered ·and unauthorized medical · D
practitioner possessing no valid qualification, degree or
diploma cannot be permitted to exploit the poor Indians
on the basis of a certificate granted by an institution
without any enrolment of students or imparting any
education or having any affiliation or recognition and that E
too without knowing the basic qualification of the
candidates. 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 F
education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or
any other branch of medical science. It merely conducts
the test. The Society never submitted any application after
1967 before the Statutory Authority to accord recognition
and modify the Entry No.105 to Part I of Schedule II to the G
Act 1970. Submissions to the effect that the Rajasthan
Indian Medicine Act, 1953 conferred privileges upon the
Vaidyas in exceptional circumstances to practice and
any restriction to practice unless the names are entered
in the Central Register is arbitrary and violative of H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 7 S.C.R.
A statutory provisions of the State Act, are preposterous for
the reason that such privileges, if are repugnant to the
provisions of Act 1970, cannot be availed by operation
of the provisions contained in Article 254 of the
Constitution. Thus, such a restriction cannot be held
B violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution. After commencement of Act, 1970, a person
not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule
II, Ill & IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice.
Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite
c qualification prescribed in Schedule II, Ill & IV to the Act,
1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of
the provisions of the State Act. Mere inclusion of name
of a person in the State Register maintained under the
State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice.
D [Paras 42, 43] [277-C-E; 278-D-H; 279-A-D]
4. The observation made by the High Court to the
extent that persons who possessed the certificate upto
1.10.1976 i.e. the date on which the provisions of Section
17 had been enforced in the State of Rajasthan is liable
E to be set aside. [Paras 44] [279-E-F]
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1988 SC 2181 relied on Para 11
F AIR 1998 SC 1608 relied on Para 12
AIR 1998 SC 2779 relied on . Para 12
(1999) 1 sec 141 relied on Para 12
AIR 2001 SC 1237 relied on Para 12
G
AIR 2001 SC 1298 relied on Para 12
AIR 2001 SC 1684 relied on Para 13
(2003) 1 sec 18 relied on Para 14
H
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 259
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA
(2005) 1 sec 653 relied on Para 14 A
(2005) 8 sec 252 reHed on Para 14
AIR 1978 SC 344 retied on Para 16
AIR 1958 SC 956 relied on Para 17
B
(2002) 8 sec 481 retied on Para 17
AIR 2007 SC 458 relied on Para 18
AIR 1963 SC 1227 relied on Para 19
c
(1991) 3 sec 87 relied on Para 20
(2003) 4 AWC 3016 approved Paras 23, 28, 34
(1999) AWC 1783 approved Para 24
(1999) 2 UPLBEC 1063 approved · Para 25 D
2003 (2) Mah.LJ 64 approved Para 26
AIR 2004 All. 373 approved Para 27
(2008) 1 sec 153 retied on Para 35 E
AIR 1998 SC 67 relied on Para 36
AIR 1999 SC 468 relied on Para 37
(2001) 1o sec 306 relied on Para 39
F
(2009) 3 SCR 840 retied on Paras 31,40,44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5324 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 06.01.2005 of the High G
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DB Civil Writ
Petition No. 733 of 2000.
WITH
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 7 S.C.R.
A C.A. Nos. 5325 of 2007 & 4757, 4758 4759 of 2010.
S.K.Dholakia, Manjit Singh, AAG, BO. Sharma, Narottam
Vyas, Ghanshyam Singh, Deep Shika Bharti, Anish Kumar
Gupta, Balbir Singh Gupta, Mohd. Azam Siddiqui, Kunwar C.M.
B Khan, lrshad Ahmad, Ramesh Kumar Kali, Rakesh
Uttamchandra Upadhyay, T.K. Joseph, Abhijeet Kakoti, Milind
Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta (NP), Shrish Kumar Misra (NP), S.K.
Verma (NP), Yash Pal Rangi, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Naresh
Bakshi (NP) for the appearing parties.
C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos.
21043/2008, 20912/2009 and 3986/2010.
In all the aforesaid Civil Appeals, common questions of
D law are involved and, therefore, they are heard together.
Questions involved in all these cases are as under:
(i) As to .whether persons who hold either the degree
or diploma of "Vaidya Visharacf' or "Ayurved Ratna"
E from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad
which are not included as recognized qualification
in Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central
Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as the 'Act
1970') have a right to practice in medical sciences.
F
(ii) As to 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.
(iii) As to whether restriction imposed under the Central
G Act from practicing, unless names appear in the
Central Register, is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India with reference to the State Act.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to Civil Appeal
H Nos.5324~5325 of 2007 and appeal arising out of SLP(C)
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 261
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
No.21043/2008 are that Section 32 of the Rajasthan Indian A
Medicine Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1953')
provided that persons who had obtained degree of "Vaidya
Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
Prayag were recognized as having sufficient qualification for
practicing as Vaidyas in Rajasthan and they were permitted to B
get themselves registered as Vaidyas in the register maintained
under the said Act 1953. Section 17(2) of the Act 1970
provided that persons who possessed the qualifications as laid
down in Second, Third and Fourth Schedule of the Act 1970
would be permitted to practice. Section 17(3) however, carved c
out an exception for those Vaidyas who had been practicing
prior to the commencement of the Act 1970. Different
provisions of the Act 1970 were enforced throughout the country
but on different dates. In Rajasthan, Section 17 came to be
enforced w.e.f. 1.10.1976. One Ved Prakash Tyagi filed Writ D
Petition No.733 of 2000 before the High Court of Rajasthan for
seeking large number of reliefs including the 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. The High E
Court considered the matter elaborately and came to the
following conclusions:
(1) Persons who did not possess requisite
qualification prescribed under Schedule 11, Ill and IV F
of the Act 1970 were not eligible to contest the
elections notwithstanding they were enrolled in the
State Register and were covered by the exception
clause under Section 17(3)(b) and were permitted
to practice medicines; G
(2) Qualification prescribed under the Act 1953 to the
extent it was repugnant to the Act 1970, would not
confer any person a right to practice or seeking
enrolment in the State Register;
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 7 S.C.R.
A (3) Section 17 of the Act 1970 came into force in
Rajasthan w.e.f. 1.10.1976. Thus, a person who
has acquired the diploma/certificate from Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, subsequent thereto
would not be eligible to be enrolled in State
B Register; and
(4) Any person who acquired such certificate/diploma
after 1.10.1976 would not have any right to practice
or participate in election. ·
C 3. Hence, Civil Appeal Nos. 5324-25 of 2007 have be.en
filed by Vaidya's Samiti and Chikitasak Sangh being aggrieved
by the judgment and order of the High Court that persons who
acquired qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan after
1.10.1976 were not eligible and entitled to practice. Appeal
D arising out of SLP (C) No.21043 of 2008 has been filed by the
Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as
'CCIM') challenging the order of the High Court to the extent
that persons who acquired certificates between 1967 and
1.10.197E> have also been permitted to practice.
E 4. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 3986 of 2010 has
been filed by the Haryana Vaidya Samiti against the judgment
and order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14392 of 2009 holding that
persons who acquired certificates/diplomas from Hindi Sahitya
F Sammelan Prayag after 1967 are not entitled to practice and
it had upheld the validity of Entry No.105 in the 4th Column
regarding the expression "upto 1967" in the Second Schedule
of the Act, 1970.
G 5. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20912 of 2009 has
been preferred by Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical
Practitioners Association being aggrieved by the judgment and
order of Delhi High Court dated 19.11.2009 passed in C.W.P.
No. 1999of1998 wherein it has been held that unless a person
H possessed qualification as required in Schedule 11, Ill and IV to
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 263
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the Act 1970, he is not entitled to practice. A
6. In all these cases, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants namely, Shri S.K.Dholakia, Sr. Advocate and Shri
B.D. Sharma have submitted that such a restriction imposed
on appellants infringes their right to practice under Article
8
19(1 ){g) of the Constitution of India, 1950. More so, once their
names stood enrolled in the State Register, they were entitled
to practice. More so, they are entitled to continue to practice,
as an exception has been carved out under Section 17(3) of
the Act, 1970. Restriction imposed under the Act 1970 from
practicing unless the names appear in the Central Register is C
violative of Art.14 of the Constitution with reference to the
statutory provisions of the Act 1953. There is no rational for
fixing the cut- off date as 1967 in Entry No.105 of the Second
Schedule to the Act, 1970 and thus liable to be quashed.
Hence, the appeals deserve to be allowed. D
7. Per contra, Shri R.U. Upadhyay, learned counsel
appearing for CCIM submitted that a person who does not
possess the qualifications as mentioned in Schedule II, Ill and
IV of the Act, 1970 is not eligible and entitled to indulge in any E
kind of medical practice. The Legislature has power to put
reasonable restrictions on the right to practice under Article
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution by virtue of Clause (6) of the said
provision. Provisions contained in the Act 1953, being.
repugnant to the statutory provisions of Act 1970, will not apply
F
by virtue of Art.254 of the Constitution. Cut-off date i.e. 1967
appearing in Entry No.105 of the Second Schedule to the 1970
Act shows that certificates issued by the said Society were not
recognized after 1967. More so, Article 21 which deals with the
life and liberty of persons has also to be kept in mind and the G
poor people of this country who cannot afford to avail the
facilities of qualified doctors have to be protected from quacks.
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag had not been recognised for
imparting medical education after 1967. Hindi Sahitya
Sammelari is not a medical institution or university or a board.
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.
A It is rrierely a society registered under the Registration of
Societies Act. It does not have any affiliated colleges.
Therefore, such persons cannot be permitted to indulge in
medic.al practice. Rajasthan High Court erred observing that
persons, who possessed the qualifications from Hindi Sahitya
8 Sammelan Prayag upto 1.10.1976 i.e. the date of enforcement
of Section 17 of the Act 1970 in Rajasthan, be allowed to
practice.
8. VVe have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
c
9. Admittedly, in none of these cases, the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad has been impleaded as party.
There is nothing on record to show that the persons who have
acquired such certificates from the said societies possess any
o other academic qualification i.e. as to whether they have
passed matriculation or intermediate or they possess any other
qualification to make them eligible to apply for such certificate.
10. There is no document on record disclosing as what
was the institution/school where such persons had got
E admission, imparted edocation, attended the classes and
practicals in laboratories and what was its duration. A bald
statement in all these cases that persons possess certificates
from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been made. Study of
medical sciences require attendance in the classes and a
F proper technical training under competent faculty as they play
an important role in maintaining the public health. None of the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants is able to point
out as to which University/Board, the educational institution
where they were imparted medical education had been
G affiliated and as to whether such schools had ever been
accorded recognition by the competent Statutory Authorities.
11. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead
the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to
H substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 265
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation A
to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, this Court has observed
as under:-
"In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a 8
point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the
party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must
plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear
from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the
counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the C
evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ
petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the
Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction
between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and
a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading,
i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the D
evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or
in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the
evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and
annexed to it."
E
. 12. Similar view has been reiterated in Mis. Larsen &
Toubro Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1998 SC
1608; National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S.
Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora
Vs. Asha Rani & Ors., ( 1999) 1 SCC 141 ; Smt Chitra Kumari F
·etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State
of UP. & Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors., AIR 2001
SC 1298.
13. In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh,
AIR 2001 SC 1684, this Court observed as under:- G
'The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings
and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law."
· 14. Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti & H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 7 S.C.R.
A Anr. Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18;
Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. P. Savithramma & Ors.,
(2005) 7 SCC 653; and Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd.
Vs. Vima/abai Prabhula/ & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252.
8 15. In absence of any pleadings made by the appellants,
it is difficult to say that any of such persons possessed any
qualification making them eligible even to apply for such
certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag.
16. In The Principal & Ors. Vs. The Presiding Officer &
C Ors. AIR 1978 SC 344, this Court held that 'recognition' means
that the school has been recognized or acknowledged by the
appropriate authority under the Statute and 'affiliation' means
that the students of that school are eligible to appear in the
examination. Therefore, purpose of affiliation is only to prepare
u and present the students for public examination, recognition of
a private school is for the other purposes mentioned under the
Statute and unless the school is recognized by the appropriate
authority, the school cannot be amenable to any other provision
of the Statute applicable in this regard.
E
17. In Re : The Kera/a Education Bill, 1957 AIR 1958 SC
956; and TM.A Pai Foundation & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
& Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481, this Court held that it is always open
to the State or the Statutory Authority to lay down conditions
F for recognition of an educational institution namely, that the
institution must have particular amount of funds or properties
or number of students or standard of education and so on and
so forth and it is also permissible for the Legislature to make
a law prescribing conditions for such recognition, however,
such a law should be constitutional and should not irifringe any
G Fundamental Right of the minorities etc. Recognition is a
Governmental function.
18. This Court has persistently deprecated the practice of
an educational institution admitting the students and to allow
H them to appear in the examinations without having requisite
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 267
A~'R. v. UNION OF !NOIA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
recognition and affiliation. This kind of infraction of law has been A
treated as of very high magnitude and of serious nature.
Students of a un-recognised institution cannot legally be entitled
to appear in any examination conducted by any government,
univers'ty or board. (Vide Minor Sunil Oraon Thr. Guardian &
Ors. Vs. C.B.S.E. & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 458). B
19. Similarly, recognition must be there with the school to
make it subjed to the provisions of the Act. Recognition
signifies an admission or an acknowledgement of something
existing before. To recognize is to take cognizance of a fact. It
implies an overt act on the part of the person taking such C
cognizance. (Vide T. V. V. Narasimham & Ors. Vs. State of
Orissa, AIR 1963 SC 1227).
20. In State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. St. Joseph Teachers
Training Institute & Anr. (1991) 3 SCC 87, this Court held that D
students of un-recognised institutions are not entitled to appear
in any public examination held by the Government and it is not
permissible for the Court to grant relief on humanitarian grounds
contrary to law to the person who claim to have passed any
examination from such institutions. E
In view of the above, it is evident that any institution which
is not recognised cannot impart an education and students ' .. ,_,
thereof cannot appear in the examination held by the
government, university or Board.
F
21. As per Entry 66 of List I to the 7th Schedule of the
Constitution, the Parliament is competent to make laws for
determining standards of institution for higher education or
research and scientific and technical institutions. Such powers
are also available with the Parliament in view of Entries 25 and G
26 of List Ill as it includes the medical education. However, in
view of Entry 6 of List II, the State Legislature is competent to
make laws pertaining to public health and sanitation, i.e.
hospitals and dispensaries. Section 2(1 )(h) of the Act 1970
provides "recognised medical qualification" as any of the H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.
A medical qualifications included in the 11, Ill or IV Schedule to that
Act. Section 14 of the Act 1970 provides a procedure for
recognition of medical qualifications provided in medical
institutions in India and Section 17 provides for entitlement/
eligibility of persons possessing qualifications included in 11, Ill
B and IV Schedule to the Act to be enrolled for practice. So far
as the II Schedule to the Act 1970 is concerned, the relevant
entries read as under:-
105 Hindi Sahitya Vaidya Visharad ~;o~-~~
Sammelan, Prayag
c to 1967"" I
Ayurved-Ratana From 1931j'
L_ ------- ----
to 1967
------
-- ~
22. Section 14(2) of the Act 1970 provides that any
D University or Board/Medical Institution if wants to impart medical
education and has not been included in the Second Schedule,
may apply to the Central Government for recognition of its
medical qualification and to be included in Second Schedule.
If such an application is made, the Central Government is
E empowered to make necessary amendment as and when
required in the Second Schedule, after considering the
application.
23. In UmaKant Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors.
(2003) 4 AWC 3016, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
F Court has considered the issue at length and came to the
conclusion that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/Prayag
were only registered societies and not educational institutions.
The said societies had no business to impart education in
medical sciences. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was a
G fake institution whereas Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was
recognised only from 1931 to 1967.
24. In Or. Vijay Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of UP. &
Ors. (1999} AWC 1783, a Division Bench of the Allahabad
H High Court has held that a degree/certificate/diploma from Hindi
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 269
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag acquired after 1967 was not A
recognised and those who obtained the same subsequent to
1967 were not entitled to practice medicines.
25. In Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1063, a Division Bench of the B
Allahabad High Court considered the matter at length alongwith
statutory provisions of the Act, 1970 and came to the conclusion
that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad had never been
empowered to issue such certificates/degrees. However,
certificates issued by the Hindi Sahi.tya Sammelan, Prayag C
were recognised during the period of 1931 to 1967. Thus, any
such certificate subsequent thereto could not entitle a person
to practice medicine.
26. In Virender Lal Vaishya Vs. Union of India & Ors. ·
2003 (2) Mah.LJ 64, a Division Bench of the Bombay High D
Court held that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was not a
recognised university/Board and thus could not award degree,
diplcln 1a or certlfi:::::te.
2l. In Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR E
2004 All. 373, the Allahabad High Court considered the issue
of validity of certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Prayag and came to the conclusion that the said institution had
absolutely no authority to confer any degree or diploma of
"Vaidya Visharad" and "Ayurved-Ratna" after 1967 and any
person who has acquired such certificate after 1967 was not F
entitled to practice at all.
. 28. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Umakant
Tiwari (supra) was set aside by this Court and the matter was
remanded to the High Court to decide afresh in Civil Appeal G
No.1453/2004 vide judgment and order dated 25th May, 2007,
for the reason that matter had initially been decided by the High
Court in 2003 without giving opportunity of hearing to Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/Prayag.
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.
A 29. After remand, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/
Prayag were given notices and were directed to file the counter
affidavits. The Court, after hearing all the parties concerned,
including Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, vide judgment and
order dated 23.10.2009, dismissed the writ petition.
B
30. So far as the question of validity of ~he cut-off date
"1967 in Entry No.105" to Schedule II is concerned, the High
Court observed as under:
"From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Act,
c 1970, it will be seen that only degrees/certificates granted
by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag between 1931 to
1967 alone have been held to be recognised medical
qualification for the purposes of Section 14 conferring a
right to practice upon the holder of the degree under Act,
D 1970. .
With regard to challenge to the words "upto 1967",
the only ground raised for contending that the cut off date
is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, is that no reasons have been disclosed. In support
E
thereof, it is stated that the course/curriculum which was
there prior to 1967 continues even thereafter for the
purposes of examinations held by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan and, no change has been introduced in the
course after 1967.
F
From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Central
Council of Indian Medicine, it is apparently clear that the
words "upto 1967" have been provided in the Second
Schedule of Act, 1970 with reference to the information
G supplied by the State Government. Such prescription of
1967 in these circumstances, cannot be termed to be
arbitrary, more so when in the facts of the case a power
was conferred upon the institution, namely, Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Prayag to make an application under Section
H 14(2) of Act, 1970 for amendment in the Schedule and for
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 271
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the degrees granted subsequent to 1967 also being A
included tl:ierein. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has
deiiberately avoided to make such an application. Because
of such inaction, it has further avoided the directions
referable to Sections 18 to 22 of Act, 1970 which would
have been otherwise become applicable. This Court may B
record that it does not lie in-the mouth of Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan to challenge the cut off date mentioned in the
Schedule as arbitrary, inasmuch as the said provisions
itself provided an opportunity to get the Schedule amended
by inclusion the degrees/certificates offered by the c
institution, i.e. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag
subsequent to 1967.
The reasons disclosed by the State-respondent for
fixation of year 1967 as the cut off year, for recognising
the degrees, i.e. supply of information by the State D
; Government has also not been disputed by Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan nor any facts for questioning the aforesaid
disclosure made by the State Government has been
brought on record of the present writ petition." (Emphasis
added) E
31. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court while
considering the writ Petition No. 7648 of 2000 (Ayurvedic
Enlisted Doctor's Association, Bombay Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr.) on the cut-off date, i.e. upto 1967 vide F
judgment and order dated 22.12.2006, recorded the following
finding:
"It is pointed out on behalf of the State that under the
prevailing relevant rules upto 1967, the degrees of Vaidya
Visharad and Ayurved Ratna were recognised by Uttar G
Pradesh Government and its Council. After that it Jost the
recognition. Therefore, these degrees conferred by Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag till 1967 only were recognised
as medical qualifications under the Central Act but after
that the recognition to these degrees was refused." H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 7 S.C.R.
A (Emphasis added)
32. Thus, from the above, it is evident that under the then
prevailing rules, certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan Prayag remained recognised only upto 1967. The
Authorities under the Statute, on the report submitted by the
8
State of U.P. had taken a decision not to recognise the said
courses any further. The Society for the reasons best known to
it never made an attempt to get recognition after fulfilling the
legal requirements and getting the Entry No.105 in Second
C Schedule of the Act, 1970, modified.
33. In such a fact-situation, even by stretch of imagination,
the said cut-off date cannot be termed as arbitrary. In fact it is
not the cut-off date fixed by the Statutory Authorities, rather it
indicates that such "courses" or certificates had not been
D recognised after 1967.
34. After remand, in Umakant Tiwari (supra) the Allahabad
High Court has recorded the following findings of fact:-
"Shri Jeevan Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for Hindi
E Sahitya Sammelan has fairly stated that Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan does not grant affiliation to any institution for
imparting education in medical courses. Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan in fact only conducts written examination for the
purposes of awarding the said degrees. Any person, who
F is successful in the written examination so held by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan is awarded the degree, irrespective of
the fact as to whether he was enrolled as a regular student
in any institution or not.
No application was ever made by the Hindi Sahitya
G
Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag to get its medical
qualifications i.e. Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna
recognized and included in the Second Schedule. They
have not represented in exercise of ppwers under Section
14(2) of Act, 1970 before the Central Government for
H
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 273
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
inclusion of the said qualifications in the Second Schedule A
at any point of time in respect of degrees/certificates
granted subsequent to 1967. This has led a very peculiar
situation. By not getting their medical qualifications
approved/rE.:cognised under Second Schedule of Act,
1970, the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has successfully B
evaded any inspection/any direction of the Central Council
of India qua medical qualification granted by it for years
together and therefore on one hand not only it did not
represent the Government for inclusion of medical
qualification even after publication of schedule as early as c
in the year 1971 till date i.e. nearly 38 years, it has also
successfully evaded inspection by the Government/Central
Council, for issuance of directions for maintenance of
standard of education, curriculum etc. At the same time it
alleges that its qualification be treated to be valid by the D
Central Council of Indian Medicine for the purpose of
permitting practice of medicine. Despite being aware of
the total prohibition qua grant of medical qualification as
per the Act of Parliament namely, Act No.48 of 1970 and
despite there being a provision to get its medical
E
qualifications recognized and included in the Second
Schedule, no effort has been made by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan for the purpose ....
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has fairly stated that it does
not affiliate or recognise any institution and it exercises F
absolutely no control on the teaching in the subject of
medicine qua degrees of Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved
Ratana, nor it is necessary for a candidate to appear in
the examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
to have been admitted as a regular student in any G
institution imparting education in the field of medicine. The
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan holds written examination only for
awarding the degree. In the opinion of the Court such grant
of degre,e without any practical teaching, cannot be
approved'of and it is for this reason that the Central H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R
A Government has come out with Central Act laying down the
norms in detail for education being imparted in the field
of medicine."
35. In Pramod Kumar Vs. UP. Secondary Education
B Services Commission & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 153, this Court
held that recognised degree can only be awarded by University
constituted/established under the provisions of University Grants
Commission Act or Rule or any State Act or Parliament Act.
No University can be established by a private management
C without any statutory backing. Similar reasons apply to Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan also, as it is only a society duly registered
under the Societies Registration Act. The competence to grant
medical degree under any provisions of law is therefore,
wanting.
D 36. In Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners Vs.
Delhi Admn. Director of Health Services & Ors., Al R 1998 SC
67, this Court held that unless a person possess the
qualifications prescribed in Schedule II, Ill and IV of the Act,
1970, does not have a right to practice and the Central
E Legislation will proceed over State Act if there is any
repugnancy between the two.
37. In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab &
Ors. AIR 1999 SC 468, this Court examined the issue of
F delegation of power dealing with the provisions of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 wherein various observations have
been made regarding registered medical practitioners and
certain rules therein had been declared ultra vires by the High
Court. However, the issue involved herein had not been raised
in that case, though an observation has been made that
G persons enrolled on the State register under accepted law who
enjoyed the privileges including the privilege to practice in any
system of medicine may under certain circumstances also
practice other system of medicine. In the said case, the issue
was confined to the rights of those persons who were otherwise
H entitled to prescribe all medicines under the Drugs and
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 275
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.].
Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the issue involved herein i.e. as to- A
whether a person having no qualification as prescribed under
the provisions of Act 1970 can be held to be qualified and
entitled to practice Indian medicines, was not involved in Or. ·
Mukhtiar Chand (supra}.
38. This Court in SLP (C} No. 22124 of 2002, Vaid Brij B
Bhushan Sharma Vs. Board of Ayur & Unani Systems, Med.
& Anr. decided on 2.12.2002 also re-iterated the view that
issue involved in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand (supra} was quite
different and persons possessing such certificates were not
entitled to practice. The Court held as under:~ C
"We are of the considered view that the judgment of the
three Judge Bench reported in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others
case (supra) is totally different on principles as also the basis
of claim therein, from the one relevant and necessary so far as D
the case on hand is concerned. The right of the petitioner therein
to continue to practice as registered medical practitioner was
not claimed on the basis of a degree of Vaid Visharad and
Ayurved Rattan awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag
as in this case, before us. The efficacy of this very degree to E
entitle the holders thereof to continue to practice as medical
practitioner by virtue of the saving clause and protection under
Section 17(3} of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970,
had come up for decision in the earlier case and with particular
reference to the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Medical
F
Central Council Act, 1970, read with the provisions contained
in the schedule thereto it has been held that only such of those
degrees issued between 1931 and 1967 were alone
recognized for the purposes and not the one obtained by the
petitioner in the year 1974, long after the coming into force of G
Section 14 on 15.8.1971 in the whole of the country. In the light
of the above principles which directly applied to the case of the
petitioner we find no merit in this petition and the same is
dismissed." · ·
39. In Udai Singh Dagar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 7 S.C.R.
A (2007) 10 SCC 306 while dealing with a similar issue, this Court
has held as under:-
'We, therefore, are of the opinion that even in the matter
of laying down of qualification by a statute, the restriction
imposed as envisaged under second part of Clause (6)
B of Article 19 of the Constitution of India must be construed
being in consonance with the interest of the general public.
The tests laid down, in our opinion, stand satisfied. We
may, however, notice that Clause (6) of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India stands on a higher footing vis-a-vis
c Clause (5) thereof. (vide State of Madras v. V.G. Row AIR
1952 SC 196)."
40. In Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 2007, Ayurvedic Enlisted
Doctor's Assn. Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
o decided on 27.2.2009, this Court considered the issue involved
herein at length and came to the conclusion as under:-
"So far as the claim that once the name is included in the
register of a particular State is a right to practice in any
part of the country is not tenable on the face of Section 29
E of the Central Act. The right to practice is restricted in the
sense thaf"only if the name finds place in the Central
Register then the question of practicing in any part of the
country arises. The conditions under Section 23 of the
Central Act are cumulative. Since the appellants
F undisputedly do not possess recognized medical
qualifications as defined in Section 2(1 )(h) their names
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
G names in the Central Register. Section 17(3A) of the
Mah~ rashtra Act refers to Section 23 of the Central Act
relating to Central Register. Section 17(1) relates to the
register for the State. In any event, it is for the State to see
that there is need for having qualification in terms of
H Second and fourth Schedule. The claim of the appellants
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 277
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
is that they have a right to practice in any part of the A
country. In terms of Article 19(6) of the Constitution,
raasonable restriction can always be put on the exercise
of right under Article 19(g)."
41. This Court further came to the conclusion that unless
B
the person possesses the qualification as prescribed in
Schedule II , Ill and IV of the Act, 1970, he cannot claim any
right to practice in medical science and mere registration in· any
State register is of no consequence.
42. In view of the above, it is evident that right to practice C
under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution is not absolute. By
virtue of the provisions of Clause (6) to Article 19 reasonable
restrictions can be imposed. The 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 D
right of a "little Indian" guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution which includes the protection and safeguarding the
health and life of a public at large from mal-medical treatment.
An unqualified, unregistered and unauthorized medical
practitioner possessing no valid qualification, degree or E
diploma cannot be permitted to exploit the poor Indians on the
basis of a certificate granted by an institution without any
enrolment of students or imparting any education or having any
affiliation or recognition and that too without knowing the basic
qualification of the candidates.
F
Question of entertaining the issue of validity of Entry
No.105 to the Second Schedule to the Act 1970 i.e. "to 1967"
does not arise as it is not a cut-off date fixed by the Statutory
Authority rather a date, after which the qualification in question
was not recognised. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan itself admitted G
that the Society was not imparting any education. It had no
affiliated colleges. It merely conducts the test. The Society never
submitted any application after 1967 before the Statutory
Authority to accord recognition and modify the Entry No.105 to
Part I of Schedule II to the Act 1970. · H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.
A Submissions to the effect that 1953 Act conferred
privileges upon the Vaidyas in exceptional circumstances to
practice and any restriction to practice unless the names are
entered in the Central Register is arbitrary and violative of
statutory provisions of the State Act, are preposterous for the
B reason that such privileges, if are repugnant to the provisions
of Act 1970, cannot be availed by operation of the provisions
contained in Article 254 of the Constitution. Thus, such a
restriction cannot be held violative of equality clause enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution.
c 43. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention
here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following
inescapable conclusions :-
(I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/
o Deemed University nor an Educational Board.
(II) It is a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act.
(Ill) It is not an educational institution imparting
E education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda
or any other branch of medical field.
(IV) No school/college imparting education in any
subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan is affiliated to any University/Board.
F
(V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition
from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt
had ever been made by the Society to get
recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act,
1970 and further did not seek modification of entry
G
No. 105 in II Schedule to the Act, 1970.
(VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts
examinations without verifying as to whether the
candidate has some elementary/basic education or
H has attended classes in Ayurveda in any
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V.S. SARDARSHAHAR AND 279
ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
recognized college. A
(VII) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not
possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule
II, Ill & IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice.
(VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State B
Register maintained under the State Act is not
enough making him eligible to practice.
(IX) The right to practice under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to
reasonable restrictions as provided. under Article - C
· 19(6) of the Constitution.
(X) Restriction on practice without possessing the
requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, Ill
& IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 D
or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State
Act.
44. The instant cases have to be determined strictly in
consonance with the law laid down by this Court referred to
hereinabove and, particularly, in Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctor's E
Assn. (supra). The observation made by the Rajasthan High
Court to the extent that persons who possessed the certificate
upto 1.10.1976 i.e. the date on which the provisions of Section
17 had been enforced in the State of Rajasthan is not in
consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the above F
referred cases. Therefore, that observation is liable to be set
aside.
45. In view of the above, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP
(C) No. 21043 of 2008 is allowed and it is held that a person G
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. All other Civil Appeals are
dismissed. No costs.
D.G. Appeals disposed of. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Indian Medicine Central Council Act"Sign in to search