REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1337 OF 2007

Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctor’s Asson.,  Mumbai ...Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

(With  Civil  Appeal  Nos.1338/2007,  1339/2007,  1884/2007,  Civil  Appeal No……………of  2008  (Arising  out  of  S.L.P  (C)  No.19079/2007, 2769/2007,  2807/2007,  2810/2007,  3543/2008,  4064/2007,  4196/2007, 4982/2007

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In these appeals  challenge is  to the final  judgment  of the  Bombay

High  Court  dismissing  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  appellants  while

granting  the  limited  relief  to  those  writ  petitioners  who  hold  degree  or

diploma in Electropathy or Homeo-Electropathy. Though their writ petitions

were dismissed it was made clear that so far as those who hold degree or

diploma  in  Electropathy  or  Homeo-Electropathy  may  practice  in

Electropathy or Electrotherapy without registration as medical practitioners

but  they  would  not  be  entitled  to  practice  as  or  claim  to  be  medical

practitioners, doctors etc and they were also not entitled to use  any title,

like Dr. or any abbreviations prefixing or suffixing their names which may

indicate that they are doctors  or medical practitioners.  Three categories of

persons filed the writ petitioners before the High Court. They are as follows:

(i) The persons who hold either  the  degree or diploma of

Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna or some other equivalent

degree awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag or Hindi

Sahitya  Sammelan  Allahabad  and  some  other  institutions

whose degree and diplomas are not recognised in Schedule II

of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970

(ii) The persons who claim to be practicising in Ayurved on

the basis of long experience  

(iii) The persons who claim to hold degrees or diplomas in

Electropathy or Homeo-Electropathy.

2

3. The present appeals relate to the first and second category. The first

category  relate  to  Civil  Appeal  Nos.1337/2007,  1338/2007,  1339/2007,

1884/2007,  Civil  Appeal  arising  out  of  SLP(C)  No.19079/2007,  Civil

Appeal  2769/2007,   2807/2007,  4196/2007,  4982/2007  and  the  second

category  relates to Civil Appeal Nos.3543/2008, 4064/2007 and 2810/2007.

4. Stand  of  the  appellants  in  essence  is  that  they  were  registered  as

practitioners under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems

of Medicine Act, 1951 (in short the ‘Bihar Act’) in terms of the Schedule as

referred to under Sections 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Their names were entered

in  the  register  as  registered  practitioners.  Though  they did  not  hold  any

degree or diploma or certificate of any recognised institution they possess

sufficient  knowledge  and  skill  requisite  for  educational  practice  of

medicines,  surgery and have acquired certain  amount of eminence in the

medical science and also fulfill the conditions imposed by the regulations

made by the Bihar  State  Council  of  Ayurvedic and Unani  Medicines  (in

short  the ‘Council’).  They were practicising in  different  places mostly in

rural  places  of  Maharashtra.  Section  21  of  the  Bihar  Act  refers  to  the

maintenance  of  registers.  Section  22  deals  with  persons  entitled  to  be

3

registered.  Under  the  said  provision  every  person  possessing  any of  the

qualifications  specified  in  the  Schedule  shall  subject  to  the  provisions

contained in the Bihar Act and on payment of the prescribed fees be entitled

to have his name entered in the register subject to such conditions as the

Council may impose. Undisputedly, the names of the appellants have been

entered in the registers and they have been registered.  The Indian Medicine

Central  Council  Act,  1970 (in short the ‘Central  Act’) was introduced in

1970.  Prior  to  that  the  Maharashtra  Medical  Practitioners  Act,  1961  (in

short the ‘Maharashtra Act’) was enacted and was in force. The appellants

claim that they belong to the third category as enumerated in the Schedule.

The Presidential assent to the Bihar Act was given on 12th September, 1951.

Under the Central Act, the Central registers in terms of Section 2(1)(d) has

to be maintained. Section 2(1)(j) refers to the State Register. It is submitted

that Section 17 of the Central Act is of considerable relevance. Section 17

(1) refers to possession of medical qualifications included in Second, Third

and  Fourth  Schedules  for  enrolment  in  the  State  Register  of  Indian

Medicine. It is pointed out that Section 17(2) refers to recognised medical

qualification.   With  reference  to  Section  14  of  the  Central  Act,  it  is

submitted that medical qualifications granted by any University, Board or

other medical institution which are included in the Second Schedule shall be

4

recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of the Act. Section 23 of

the  Central  Act  deals  with  Central  Register  and  it  provides  that  Central

Council shall cause to be maintained in the prescribed manner a register of

practitioners in separate parts for each of the system of Indian medicine. It

shall contain the names of all persons who are for the time being enrolled on

any  State  Register  of  Indian  Medicine  and  who  possess  any  of  the

recognised medical qualifications. It is pointed out  that merely because the

appellant do not possess the requisite medical qualification that cannot in

any way disentitle them from practicising  as same would be violative of

Article  19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  1950  (in  short  the

‘Constitution’). Under Section 29 of the Central Act, a person whose name

is included in the Central Register is entitled as a matter of right to practice

in  any part  of India. Since the names of the appellants  find place in the

Bihar State Registers they are, as a matter of right, entitled to be included in

the Central Register. It is submitted that the restriction imposed under the

Central  Act from practicing, unless  names appear in the Central Register

will  be  violative  of  Article  14.  With  reference  to  Section  33  of  the

Maharashtra Act, more particularly, the first proviso thereof, it is submitted

that  the  State  is  empowered  to  permit  any person  to  practice  on  certain

criteria being fixed. With reference to Section 37 of the Maharashtra Act

5

which has been deleted it is  submitted  that permission was given to those

who  were  practicising  in  the  rural  areas,  by  deleting  the  section  the

permission has been taken out and such deletion is not sustainable in law.

Even though Section 37 has been deleted, under the proviso to Section 33

the State Government can yet make a provision for giving permission to

persons like the appellants. It is pointed out that the Central Government

also felt the need for giving protection to persons like the appellants and

recommendations were made.   

5. It  is  also  submitted  that  the  Madras  High  Court  had given  certain

directions which are equitable and the same procedure can be followed in

these cases in case of appellants.  In some of the appeals denial is on the

ground that certificates were not found of recognised institutions.   

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted

that  there  was  no  question  of  any  right  to  practice.  As  contended  the

educational qualifications prescribed are regulatory measures and they are

reasonable restrictions. It is pointed out that even in the case of Diploma

holders in Veterinary Science, this Court had declined to interfere. They,

according to the respondents,  stood on a better footing  than the present

6

appellants. The stand that the appellants have undergone some process of

screening  is  of  no  consequence.  The  prayer  that  the  appellants  can  be

considered in the light of proviso to Section 33 is also mis-conceived.  

7. It is necessary to take note certain provisions.  

BIHAR ACT:

“21. Maintenance  of  registers-  Subject  to  any  general  or special  order,  which may from time to  time be made by the Council, the Registrar shall maintain a register or registers of vaidyas,  hakims,  surgeons  and  midwives  practicing  the Ayurvedic or Unani System of medicine in the State of Bihar in the prescribed form and it shall be the duty of the Registrar to keep the register correct and up-to-date, as far as practicable in accordance with the provisions made by or under this Act.

22. Persons  entitled  to  be  registered-  (1)  Every  person possessing any of the qualifications specified in the Schedule shall  subject  to  the provisions  contained  in  this  Act,  and on payment  of  the  prescribed fees  be entitled  to  have his  name entered in the register subject to such conditions as the council may impose:

Provided that an application for entry of the name in the register of a person whose case is not clearly governed by the provisions  of  this  Act  or  by the  rules  and  regulations  made thereunder shall be referred to the Council for such decisions as it may deem fit.

(2) Any person  aggrieved by the decision of the Register regarding the registration of any person or the making of any entry in the register may within ninety days of such registration or entry appeal to the Council.

7

(3) Such appeal shall be heard and decided by the Council in the prescribed manner.

(4) The  Council  may,  on  its  own  motion  or  on  the application  of  any  person  cancel  or  alter  any  entry  in  the register  if,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Council,  such  entry  was incorrect or was made on account of mis-representation.     SCHEDULE:

3. Every vaidya or hakim who in the opinion of the Council possesses  sufficient  knowledge  and  skill  requisite  for  the efficient practice of medicine, surgery or midwifery and enjoys a certain amount of eminence in the medical science and who fulfils  the  conditions  imposed  by  regulations  made  by  the Council as to length of practice.

Maharashtra Act  

“2(n)-  ‘Registered  Practitioner’  means  a  practitioner  whose name is for the time being entered in the register.  

17. REGISTRATION OF PRACTITIONERS.

17 (1)  As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Registrar shall prepare and maintain thereafter a register of practitioners of  Indian  Medicine  for  the  State,  in  accordance  with  the provisions of this Act.

(2) The register shall be divided into three parts, namely :

(i) Part I containing the names of practitioners who possess any of the qualifications specified in the Schedule;  

 [(ii)  Part  II  containing  the  names  of  practitioners,  whose

names were included in  that  part  immediately before the  1st day of October 1976;

(iii) Part III containing the names of practitioners, who on the 30th  day of  September  1976  were  enlisted  practitioners  and

8

who  are  on  that  day  deemed  to  have  become  registered practitioners under section 18.  

Each part shall consist of one or more sections as the State Government may specify in this behalf.

(3)  Every  person  who  possesses  any  of  the  qualifications specified in the Schedule shall,  at any time on an application made in the form prescribed by rules, to the Registrar and on payment of a fee of five hundred rupees be entitled to have his name entered in the register.

(3A) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any law for  the time  being  in  force,  every  person  enrolled  on  the  register maintained  under  the  Indian  Medicine  Central  Council  Act, 1970,  but  not  enrolled  on the  register  maintained  under  this Act,  shall,  on  an  application  and  on  payment  of  the  fee  as provided  in  sub-section  (3),  be  entitled  to  have  his  name entered-in the register maintained under this Act.

(4)  The name of every person who on the  day immediately preceding  the  appointed  day stood  registered  in  any register kept under-

(a) the Bombay Medical Practitioner's Act, 1938, as in force in the Bombay area of the State ; or

(b) the Central  Provinces  and  Berar  Ayurvedic  and Unani Practitioner’s Act, 1947, as in force in the Vidarbha regon of the State; or

(c ) the Medical Act, as in fore in the Hyderabad area of the State;

shall be entered in the register prepared under this Act without such permission being required to make an application  or  to pay any fee.

9

(5) Any person, not being a person qualified for registration under sub-section (3) or (4), who proves to the satisfaction of the Committee appointed under sub-section (6) –

(i) that he had been regularly practising the Ayurvedic or the Unani  system  of  medicine  in  the  Vidarbha  region  or  the Hyderabad area of the State, for a period of not less than ten years immediately before the 23rd day of November 1960 ; or

(ii) that he was on the 4th day of November 1941 regularly practising the Ayurvedic or the Unani system of medicine in the Bombay area of the State, but his name was not entered in the  register  maintained  under  the  Bombay  Medical Practitioner's Act, 1938; or

(iii) that  his  name had been  entered  in  the  list  kept  under section 18 of the Bombay Medical Practitioner's Act, 1938, by virtue of paragraph (ii) or (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 31C inserted  in  that  Act  by  the  Bombay  Medical  Practitioner's (Amendment)Act,  1949,  and  stood  included,  on  the  day immediately preceding the date of  the commencement  of  the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner's (Amendment) Act, 1964, in the list  maintained under this Act,  by virtue of clause  (a)  of sub-section (2) of section 18,

shall, on an application made in the form prescribed by rules, accompanied by a fee of ten rupees and such documents as may be  prescribed  by  rules,  on  or  before  the  31st  day  of  March 1965, be entitled to have his name entered in the register.

(6) All applications for registration under sub-section (5) shall be considered by a Committee of three members of the Council appointed by the State Government. The Committee shall make enquiry in  such  manner  as  may be  prescribed  by rules.  The Committee  shall  not  entertain  any further  application  from a person, if an application made by him under clauses  (i)  or (ii) of sub-section (5) has already been decided by it.

10

(7)(a) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Committee appointed under sub-section (6)  may, within a period of one month from the date of which such decision is communicated to  him,  on  payment  of  a  fee  of  five  rupees,  appeal  to  the appellate authority constituted by the State Government in this behalf. The appellate authority shall consist of a Chairman who has for  at  least  seven years  held judicial  office not  lower  in rank than that of a District Judge, one member elected by the Council,  and the Director  of  Ayurved shall  be the  ex-officio member. The decision of the appellate authority shall be final.

(b) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  clause  (a)  any person aggrieved by such decision of the Committee, who has not already appealed to the appellate authority aforesaid before the  date  of  the  commencement  of  the  Maharashtra  Medical Practitioners' (Amendment) Act, 1964, may on or before the 31 st day of March 1965, on payment of a like fee of five rupees, appeal to the appellate authority.

(7A) If  on  an application for  registration  made under  clause (iii)  of sub-section  (5)  or on  appeal  under sub-section (7),  a person is found eligible for registration, then on his name being included in the register the entry of his name in the list shall be cancelled.

(8)  The  register  shall  include  the  following  particulars, namely: (a)  the  full  name  and  residential  address  of  the  registered practitioner;

(b) the date of his admission to the register maintained under this Act; and if he, be a person who was registered on the day immediately  preceding  the  appointed  day,  in  a  register  kept under any of the Acts referred to in sub-section (4), the date of his admission to that register;

(c)  the  qualification  specified  in  the  Schedule  possessed  by him, if any, and the date on which he obtained the qualification and the authority which conferred or granted it; and

11

(d) such further particulars as may be prescribed by rules.

(9)  When  the  register  is  prepared  in  accordance  with  the foregoing provisions the Registrar shall publish a notice in the Official  Gazette  and  such  newspapers  as  the  Council  may select, about the register having been prepared, and the register shall come into force from the date of the publication of such notice in the Official Gazette.

(10)(a) Every registered practitioner shall be given a certificate of registration in the form prescribed by rules. The registered practitioner  shall  display  the  certificate  of  registration  in  a conspicuous place in his dispensary, clinic or place of practice.

(b) Such certificate shall be valid until it is duly cancelled and the name of the practitioner is removed from the register under the provisions of this Act; and every certificate of registration given before  the commencement of the Maharashtra  Medical Practitioners  (Amendment) Act, 1972 which is  valid on such commencement shall, subject to the provisions of section 23A, be valid likewise, and shall continue accordingly.

(c) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Registrar that a certificate of registration has been defaced, lost or destroyed, the Registrar  may, on payment of  the prescribed fee, issue a duplicate certificate in such form as may be prescribed.

Section 33:  Prohibition of  medical  practice  by persons not registered-(1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, no person other than a medical practitioner whose name is entered in--

(i) the register maintained under this Act; or

(ii) the register or the list  prepared and maintained under the Bombay Homoeopathic and Biochemic Practitioners Act, 1959 (Bom. XII of 1960) or under any other law for the time being in force  in  relation  to  the  qualifications  and  registration  of

12

Homoeopathic  or  Biochemic  Practitioners  in  any part  of  the State; or

(iii) the register prepared and maintained under  the Maharashtra  Medical  Council  Act,  1965  ;  (Mah  XLVI  of 1965), or

(iv) the  Indian  Medical  Register  prepared  and  maintained under  the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956  (CII  of  1956). Shall practice any of medicine in the State:

Provided that the State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, direct that subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose and the payment of such fees as may be prescribed  by Rules,  the provisions  of  this  Section  shall  not apply to any class of persons, or to area, as may be specified in such Notification.

(2) Any  person,  who  acts  in  contravention  of  any  of  the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, on conviction be punished-  

(a) for the first offence, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five  years  and  with  fine  which  shall  not  be  less  than  two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees; and

(b)  for  a  second  or  subsequent  offence,  with  rigorous imprisonment for  a term which may extend to  ten years and with the fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that,  when the contravention  continued after  the order  of  conviction  a  further  fine  which  may extend  to  five hundred  rupees,  for  each  day  of  continuation  of  such contravention, may be imposed.  

Section 37- Liberty to practice in rural areas-Notwithstanding anything  contained  in  this  Chapter,  a  person  may  practice medicine in any rural area

13

(i) if he has commenced practice in any village in the said area prior  to  a  date  on  which  a  practitioner  registered  under  the Bombay Medical  Act,  1912 (Bom. VI of 1912) or under the Bombay  Medical  Practitioners'  Act,  1938  (Bom.  XXVI  of 1938), (or any law corresponding thereto) or under the Bombay Homoeopathic Act, 1951 (Bom. XLVIII of 1951), (or other law in  relation  to  the  qualifications  and  registration  of Homoeopathic or Biochemic Practitioenrs) for the time being in force, has commenced, and is in regular practice of medicine in that village, and

(ii) so long as he continues to practice in that village as his principal place of practice.

Explanation-  For  the  purposes  of  this  Section,  "rural  area' means-

(i) any local area in the Bombay are of the State, which was not within  the  limits  of  a  municipal  corporation,  municipality, cantonment or notified area Committee on the 1st day of March 1939; and

(ii) any local area in the rest of the State, which is not within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee,  town  committee,  cantonment  or  notified  area committee on the date of passing of this Act.

irrespective of any change in the designation or description of such local area at subsequent date.”

CENTRAL ACT:

2(1)(d)-  ‘Central  Register  of  Indian  Medicine’  means  the register maintained by the Central Council under this Act. 2(1)(h)-  ‘recognised  medical  qualification’  means  any of  the medical  qualifications,  including  post-graduate  medical qualification, of Indian Medicine included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule.

14

2(1)(j)- ‘State Register of Indian Medicine’ means a register or registers  maintained under any law for the time being in force in  any  State  regulating  the  registration  of  practitioners  of Indian medicine.”

8. So far as the claim that once the name is included in the register of a

particular State there is a right to practice in any part of the country is not

tenable on the face of Section 29 of the Central Act. The right to practice is

restricted  in  the  sense  that  only  if  the  name  finds  place  in  the  Central

Register then the question of practicising in any part of the country arise.

The conditions under Section 23 of the Central Act are cumulative. Since

the  appellants  undisputedly  do  not  possess  recognised  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 names in

the  Central  Register.  Section  17(3A)  of  the  Maharashtra  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  Second  and  Fourth

Schedule. The claim of the appellants is that they have a right to practice in

any  part  of  the  country.   In  terms  of  Article  19(6)  of  the  Constitution,

15

reasonable  restriction  can  always  be  put  on  the  exercise  of  right  under

Article 19(g).   In Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy v. State of Kerela and Ors. (1992 (3)

SCC 147) the case related to Section 38 of the  Travancore-Cochin Medical

Practitioners Act, 1953. The Statute is almost in pari materia with provision

to  Section  33  of  the  Maharashtra  Act.  Though  in  that  case  the  State

Government had granted exemption, this Court observed that same cannot

be granted. The State Act in that sense was repugnant to the Central Act in

the background of Medical Council Act, 1956.  

9. In Veterinary Science, this Court in  Udai Singh Dagar v.  Union of

India (2007 (10) SCC 306) inter-alia observed as follows:

“41. 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)  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-à-vis Clause (5) thereof. We say so in view of the celebrated decision of this Court in  State of Madras v. V.G. Row (AIR 1952 SC 196)  wherein it was stated: (AIR p.200, para 15)

“15 … It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed,  should  be  applied  to  each  individual statute  impugned,  and  no  abstract  standard  or

16

general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged  to  have  been  infringed,  the  underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions  at  the  time,  should  all  enter  into  the judicial verdict. In evaluating such elusive factors and  forming  their  own  conception  of  what  is reasonable,  in  all  the  circumstances  of  a  given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy and the scale of values of the Judges participating in the decision should play an important part, and the limit  to  their  interference  with  legislative judgment  in  such  cases  can  only be  dictated  by their sense of responsibility and self-restraint and the  sobering  reflection  that  the  Constitution  is meant not only for people of their way of thinking but  for  all,  and  that  the  majority  of  the  elected representatives of the people have, in authorising the  imposition of the restrictions, considered them to be reasonable.”

42. The tests laid down therein viz. the test of reasonableness as  also  general  public  interest,  however,  may not  ipso  facto apply  in  a  case  involving  Clause  (6)  of  Article  19  of  the Constitution of India.”

10. So far as the degrees and diplomas of non-recognised institutions are

concerned this Court had occasion to deal with the issue in  Delhi Pradesh

Registered  Medical  Practitioners v.  Director  of  Health,  Delhi  Admn.

17

Services  and  Ors.  (1997  (11)  SCC  687).  It  was  inter-alia  observed  as

follows:

“5.  We are, however, unable to accept such contention of Mr Mehta. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central  Council  Act,  1970,  in  our  view,  only envisages  that where before the enactment of the said Indian Medicine Central Act, 1970 on the basis of requisite qualification which was then recognised,  a  person  got  himself  registered  as  medical practitioner in the disciplines contemplated under the said Act or  in  the  absence  of  any  requirement  for  registration  such person  had  been  practising  for  five  years  or  intended  to  be registered and was also entitled to be registered, the right of such person to practise in the discipline concerned including the  privileges  of  a  registered  medical  practitioner  stood protected  even  though  such  practitioner  did  not  possess requisite qualification under the said Act of 1970. It  may be indicated that such view of ours is reflected from the Objects and  Reasons  indicated  for  introducing  sub-section  (3)  of Section  17  in  the  Act.  In  the  Objects  and  Reasons,  it  was mentioned:

“The  Committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the existing  rights  and  privileges  of  practitioners  of Indian  Medicine  should  be  given  adequate safeguards. The Committee in order to achieve the object,  have added three new paragraphs  to sub- section (3) of the clause protecting (i) the rights to practise of those practitioners of Indian Medicine who  may  not,  under  the  proposed  legislation, possess  a  recognised  qualification  subject  to  the condition that they are already enrolled on a State Register  of  Indian  Medicine  on  the  date  of commencement  of  this  Act,  (ii)  the  privileges conferred on the practitioners of Indian Medicine enrolled  on  a  State  Register,  under  any  law  in force in that State, and (iii) the right to practise in

18

a  State  of  those  practitioners  who  have  been practising  Indian  Medicine  in  that  State  for  not less  than  five  years  where  no  register  of  Indian Medicine was maintained earlier.”

As it is not the case of any of the writ petitioners that they had acquired the degree in between 1957 (sic 1967) and 1970 or on the date of enforcement of provisions of Section 17(2) of the said Act and got themselves registered or acquired right to be registered, there is no question of getting the protection under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the said Act. It is to be stated here that there is also no challenge as to the validity of the said Central  Act,  1970.  The  decision  of  the  Delhi  High  Court therefore cannot be assailed by the appellants. We may indicate here that it has been submitted by Mr Mehta and also by Ms Sona Khan appearing in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition  No. 6167 of 1993 that  proper  consideration had not been given to the standard of education imparted by the said Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag and expertise acquired by the holders of the aforesaid degrees awarded by the said institution. In  any  event,  when  proper  medical  facilities  have  not  been made  available  to  a  large  number  of  poorer  sections  of  the society,  the  ban  imposed  on  the  practitioners  like  the  writ petitioners  rendering  useful  service  to  the  needy  and  poor people was wholly unjustified. It is not necessary for this Court to consider such submissions because the same remains in the realm of policy decision of other constitutional functionaries. We  may  also  indicate  here  that  what  constitutes  proper education  and  requisite  expertise  for  a  practitioner  in  Indian Medicine, must be left to the proper authority having requisite knowledge in the subject.  As the decision of the Delhi High Court is justified on the face of legal position flowing from the said Central Act of 1970, we do not think that any interference by  this  Court  is  called  for.  These  appeals  therefore  are dismissed without any order as to costs.”

19

11. Above being the position, the High Court was justified in dismissing

the writ petitions. However, the prosecution was lodged in terms of Section

33 for alleged violation of provisions of the Maharashtra Act. Considering

the peculiar  facts  of  the  case  we direct  that  the  prosecution  shall  not  be

continued in respect of the past infractions. However, from today onwards,

it is open to the authorities to act as provided in the Statute. The appeals are

dismissed subject to the directions relating to the prosecution. Costs made

easy.    

…………………………….…….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………..……………J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi: February 27, 2009  

20