Summary
The Court upheld compulsory service bonds for postgraduate and super-speciality education in government medical institutions. States could issue executive orders in the unoccupied field, and the bonds served public-health needs without violating the asserted constitutional or contractual rights. Doctors remained bound by their bonds. Authorities were directed to consider two years’ service with a Rs.20 lakh exit payment, and a uniform national policy was suggested; the Court did not itself substitute those terms in every bond.
Issues
- Whether States could impose medical service bonds through executive orders.
- Whether the conditions infringed constitutional rights or prohibitions concerning personal service and restraint of profession.
- What relief concerning the duration, exit amount and uniformity of bonds was appropriate.
Provisions considered
- Article 23, Constitution of IndiaShort compulsory public service on a decent stipend after informed acceptance of subsidised education was not forced labour; public-purpose service was permitted. (¶ 34–36)
- Article 47, Constitution of IndiaThe State’s public-health duty supported the object of extending specialist care to deprived sections. (¶ 22–33)
Held
- Central legislation did not occupy the field of compulsory medical bonds. State executive authority extended to matters within State legislative competence, permitting the challenged notifications. (¶ 17)
- Subsidised education, stipends, infrastructure expenditure and shortage of specialists supplied relevant reasons for the policy. Service and default conditions were not inherently unreasonable, but duration and exit terms needed to be reasonable. States and AFMC were directed to consider two years’ service or Rs.20 lakh recompense. (¶ 18–19)
- The Article 19 challenge failed in the context of admission conditions accepted as a composite package. The Article 21 challenge also failed because the policy protected access to specialist care and the dignity of deprived sections. (¶ 20–33)
- Service for a short period on a decent stipend following informed acceptance of subsidised education was not forced labour. Article 23(2) permitted compulsory public-purpose service in government hospitals. (¶ 34–36)
- No State sought a decree specifically enforcing personal service, so the Specific Relief Act objection did not invalidate the bonds. A reasonable covenant to serve government for a few years was also not an impermissible restraint of profession. (¶ 37–39)
- Doctors remained bound by the conditions they had executed. In view of rigid and varying terms, suitable Union and Medical Council steps towards a uniform policy were suggested. (¶ 40–42)
Result
Writ petitions and appeals dismissed; executed bonds remain binding. States and AFMC to consider two-year service and Rs.20 lakh exit terms. Union and Medical Council invited to take suitable steps towards a uniform policy.