SC's restriction on unrecognised ayurvedic medicos | Latest News India - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

SC's restriction on unrecognised ayurvedic medicos

PTI | By, New Delhi
Mar 01, 2009 09:50 AM IST

Ayurvedic doctors who do not possess requisite qualifications prescribed under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act (IMCCA) cannot practice anywhere in India as they like, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Ayurvedic doctors who do not possess requisite qualifications prescribed under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act (IMCCA) cannot practice anywhere in India as they like, the Supreme Court has ruled.

HT Image
HT Image

In other words, if the ayurvedic practitioners are recognised in a particular state, they do not have any automatic right to practice in other parts of the country too.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

Such doctors can only practice in other parts of the country provided their qualification is recognised under the IMCCA, a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma said.

Under Section 29 of the Central Act (IMCCA), the right to practice anywhere in the country is restricted and permissible only if the name of the practitioner finds place in the Central register as per the qualifications prescribed under Section 2(1)(h) of the Act.

Section 2(1)(h) prescribes the qualifications and institutions recognised by the Council for the purpose of imparting training in ayurveda.

The apex court rejected the argument that such a restriction violates a citizen's fundamental right under Article 14 (no discrimination between citizens).

In this case, the Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctor's Association had challenged the Maharashtra Government's decision to prosecute those practising Ayurveda without being registered with the IMCCA.

The stand of the appellants was that they were registered as practitioners under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (the 'Bihar Act').

They argued that though they did not hold any degree or diploma or certificate of any recognised institution, they possessed sufficient knowledge and skill requisite for educational practice of medicines and surgery.

The appellants claimed they fulfilled the conditions imposed by the regulations of Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines (the Council) and their names were entered in the state council's register.

The association argued that the Government could not ban their practice on the ground that their names were not registered in the IMCCA as such a restriction was violative of Article 14.

However, the apex court rejected the argument and said that under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, the Government can always put "reasonable restrictions" on a citizen's fundamental right.

Unveiling 'Elections 2024: The Big Picture', a fresh segment in HT's talk show 'The Interview with Kumkum Chadha', where leaders across the political spectrum discuss the upcoming general elections. Watch now!

Get Current Updates on Election 2024, India News, Lok Sabha Election 2024 LIVE along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Wednesday, March 20, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On