Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by traditional practitioners seeking permission to practise Indian systems of medicine without the prescribed qualifications and registration. Hereditary training and experience did not replace the statutory requirements. The Court considered the protections for existing practitioners under the legislation, but the appellants failed to show recognised qualifications or entry in the appropriate registers. Professional freedom remained subject to laws prescribing necessary qualifications and protecting patients’ life and health.
Issues
- Whether hereditary training and experience entitled unqualified and unregistered traditional practitioners to practise Indian medicine.
- Whether the statutory protections for existing practitioners assisted the appellants.
Provisions considered
- Section 17, Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970The qualification and registration requirements governed the right to practise, subject to the statutory savings for existing practitioners. The appellants did not establish an entitlement within the statutory scheme. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20)
- Sections 23 and 38, Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953The Court considered eligibility for registration, the prohibition on unregistered practice and its provisos together with the central legislation. Traditional experience did not establish the appellants’ claimed right to practise outside the scheme. (¶¶ 10, 12, 14, 20)
Held
- Professional skill for medical practice was subject to prescribed recognised qualifications and registration. Even a recognised diploma or degree did not by itself dispense with registration. The appellants admittedly lacked the prescribed recognised degrees or diplomas. (¶ 13)
- The statutory savings protected specified existing rights, including practice for at least five years at commencement where no State Register was then maintained. They did not create an unrestricted hereditary-practice exemption; the appellants failed to demonstrate the requisite qualifications or entries in the appropriate registers. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 15, 20)
- The constitutional freedom to practise a profession was subject to laws prescribing necessary professional or technical qualifications. Regulation took account of both practitioners’ rights and patients’ rights to life and proper health care. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
Result
Appeals dismissed and the High Court’s dismissal of the petitions upheld; interlocutory applications disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.