http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4643 of 2003

PETITIONER: Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/2007

BENCH: B.N. AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4644-4645 OF 2003 Dr.Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.                            \005 Appellants

                                          vs.

State of Bihar & Ors.                                \005 Respondents

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4646 OF 2003 Ashok Kumar & Ors.                                              \005 Appellants

                                           vs.

State of Bihar & Ors.                                   \005 Respondents

P.P. Naolekar, J.: 1.              The brief facts of the case are that six  petitioners in CWJC No. 7253 of 1998 before the Patna High  Court who had obtained GAMS (Graduate of Ayurvedic Medicine  and Surgery) degree from the State Faculty of Ayurvedic and  Unani Medicines (for short \023the  Faculty\024)  established  under Section 17 of the Bihar Development  of Ayurvedic and  Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (for short \023the 1951  Act\024) were not permitted to appear in the examination for  admission in Post Graduate Course in Ayurved leading to  award of Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Ayurved.  It was  the case of the petitioners that they had passed the GAMS  examination conducted by the Faculty under the 1951 Act and  were conferred GAMS degree by the Faculty and, thus, they  were qualified to appear in the examination for obtaining  the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Ayurved.  After service  of notice, the respondents entered appearance and the State  filed reply wherein the stand taken by the State was that  GAMS Degree obtained by the petitioners in 1997 was not  valid and recognized degree because according to the letter  dated 4.7.1998 sent by the  Secretary, Central Council of  Indian Medicine (for short \023CCIM\024), GAMS course was no  longer recognized by the CCIM.  The respondent-CCIM alleged  that in accordance with the requirements of the Indian  Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short \023the 1970  Act\024), CCIM had prescribed regulations providing for BAMS  (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) course at  graduate level and MD(Ay.) course at post-graduate level,  and only the course prescribed by CCIM is to be conducted  by the universities and the prescribed degree can only be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

awarded by them as per the 1970 Act.   It was also the case  of the respondents that after the Bihar Indigenous Medical  Educational Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982  (for short \023the 1982 Act\024), the GAMS degree could only  be  recognized if it is conferred on the students who had  studied from the colleges recognized under the 1982 Act.     2.              On the pleadings of the parties, the High Court  considered the case on the aspect whether the Faculty under  the 1951 Act has unqualified right to grant affiliation to  such institutions or colleges which are not following the  BAMS course prescribed by CCIM through regulations under  the 1970 Act and further whether the provisions of the 1982  Act which seek to regulate institutions imparting training  in Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine shall cover and  regulate even those institutions which have been granted  affiliation by the  Faculty.   The High Court held that the  system of course for GAMS had come to an end for quite some  time and BAMS course has been followed as per the  regulations of CCIM; hence, only on the basis of a  continued entry in the Second Schedule of the 1970 Act  which recognized GAMS degree, which is in the view of the  High Court is archaic, no right can be found in the person  or institution to ignore the course validly prescribed by  the competent authority-CCIM.  The High Court further held  that the 1982 Act aims at curing a rampant evil in  concerned colleges in the State of Bihar and hence the  State Government was given control in the matter of making  queries  into the standard of educational institutions  teaching Indian system of medicine, and thereafter  proceeding for recognition of the institution under the  1982 Act.  It was held that when the petitioners who  obtained GAMS degrees had studied in the educational  institutions which have not followed course prescribed by  CCIM, the statutory central authority, and further when  such institutions have been run in total contravention and  violation of the 1982 Act, they are not entitled to for  issuance of any writ from the court.          3.              Another writ petition being CWJC No. 825 of 1998  filed by Pramila Kumari & Ors. in the Patna High Court  challenged the order whereby they had not been allowed to  compete in the selection for appointment to the post of  Ayurvedic Medical Officer on the basis that they were the  holders of GAMS degree from the Bihar State Faculty, which  was claimed to be a recognized degree by the CCIM.  The  petitioners sought relief that they be permitted to fill up  the forms and to take part in the examination and further  for declaration that GAMS degree granted by the Faculty was  equivalent to BAMS degree granted by a recognized  University of the State. 4.              The learned Single Judge differed with the view  taken by the court in CWJC No. 7253 of 1998 and held that  Faculty has been created under the 1951 Act, much prior to  the promulgation of the 1982 Act, the powers under the 1951  Act of granting GAMS degree by the Faculty is also  recognized under the 1970 Central Act as per Second  Schedule thereof.  The court was also concerned with the  fate of the students who had been conferred GAMS degree by  a body created under the 1951 Act and the degree has been  saved by recognizing it under the 1970 Central Act.  In  this view, the matter was directed to be placed before a  Division Bench after necessary orders of Hon\022ble the Chief  Justice. 5.              The judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWJC  No. 7253 of 1998 was challenged by filing LPA No. 451 of  2000 by only one petitioner, namely, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

and other petitioners were impleaded in the case as  respondents.  Also the Bihar State Council of Ayuyrvedic  and Unani Medicine aggrieved by the judgment in CWJC No.  7253 of 1998, filed another letters patent appeal which was  registered as LPA No. 463 of 2000.  CWJC No. 825 of 1998  was placed along with the LPAs before the Division Bench  for decision.  The writ petitioners re-asserted their  submissions before the Division Bench that they had  completed the course of GAMS degree and passed examination  conducted by the Faculty under the 1951 Act.  As per Second  Schedule of the 1970 Act, a central Act, which contains  State-wise entries, entries Nos. 6 to 9A relate to the  institutions/universities of Bihar which recognize GAMS  degree under entry No. 6 from 1953 onwards.  It was  submitted that as the degree conferred on the writ  petitioners is a recognized degree on the basis of the said  entry in the 1970 Act, they were entitled to appear for  entrance test to the post-graduate course and also for  consideration for  appointment to the post of Ayurvedic  Medical Officers on the basis of GAMS degree which they  were holding.   6.              The Division Bench agreed with the reasoning  adopted by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No 7253 of 1990  and held that under the scheme of the 1970 Act as well as  the Bihar Indigenous Medical Educational Institution  (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 1981 which was replaced  by Bihar Act 20 of 1982, the CCIM was authorised to  prescribe the course of studies in the system of medicine  so that the Indian system of medicine may maintain  uniformity and standard of teaching all over the country,  which has been sought to be achieved by the regulations  framed under the 1970 Act.  The Division Bench also agreed  with the learned Single Judge that the course of study of  GAMS had come to an end and had been replaced by BAMS  course, much before the writ petitioners acquired their  GAMS degree.  The Court approved the decision of the  learned Single Judge whereby he had come to the conclusion  that the 1982 Act has been enacted to regulate the  indiscriminate opening of indigenous medical institutions  in the State by persons of bodies registered under the  Societies Registration Act, 1960 and had in fact  commercialized the system of education in indigenous  medicine; therefore, the institutions which are not  recognized by the State under the 1982 Act could not impart  the study in Ayurvedic medicine.    It was held that the  State authorities under the 1982 Act have rightly taken the  follow-up action.  On these findings being arrived at by  the Division Bench, no merit was found in the LPAs and the  writ petition, which were dismissed by the Division Bench.   Aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2001 passed by the  Division Bench in the LPAs and the WP, the appellants,  namely, Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine  (in Civil Appeal No.4643/2003), Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh &  Ors. (in Civil Appeal Nos. 4644-46 of 2003) and Ashok Kumar  Singh & Ors. (in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2003) are before  us by special leave. 7.              It is an admitted fact before us that the writ  petitioners have studied from Ramjee Prasad, Ram Kumari  Devi @ Marni Devi Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital,  Fatuha and Shrihari Shakuntalayam Ayurvedic Medical  College, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.  The said colleges were  granted affiliation by the Faculty on 19.8.1995 with  retrospective effect from the session commenced in 1992 and  they are recognized under the 1951 Act.  8.              The Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 received the assent of the  President on 12.9.1951 and the assent was first published  in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 17.10.1951.   This Act was enacted to provide for the development of the  ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine, to regulate their  teaching and practice, and to control the sale of  indigenous medicinal herbs and drugs in the State of Bihar.    In exercise of powers under Section 3, the State Government  shall, by notification, constitute a Council to be called  the Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines,  which shall consist of a President and the Members  mentioned in clauses (a) to (n) of Section 3(1).  Under  Section 17 of this Act, the Council shall establish a State  Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines for the purposes  of the Act which shall consist of a Chairman and the  Members enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 17(1).   Under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 17,  it  shall be the duty of the Faculty to recognize educational  or instructional institutions of the Ayurvedic and Unani  systems of medicine for purposes of affiliation.  Under  clause (b) of Section 17(2), the Faculty is authorized to  hold examination and grant certificates to, and confer  degrees or diplomas on, persons who shall have pursued a  course of study in the institutions affiliated to the  Faculty.    Section 37 of this Act authorizes the Council  to establish educational institutions, prescribe courses of  study, etc. subject to the rules as may be prescribed by  the State Government in this behalf.  Section 37 clothes  the Council with power to establish its own educational or  instructional institutions for the purpose of conducting  courses of Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine.  Under  Section 54,  the Council is authorized to make regulations  subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made by  the State Government. 9.              Looking into the aforesaid provisions, it is  clear to us that the Council constituted by the State  Government under the 1951 Act shall establish a State  Faculty under Section 17 which shall have the authority to  recognize educational or instructional institutions of  Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine, to conduct  examinations of the persons studying in such affiliated  institutions, and to grant certificates and confer degrees  or diplomas.    10.             Under Section 54 of the 1951 Act, the Council has  framed regulations called the Bihar Development of  Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines Regulations, 1959.   Regulation 16 thereof provides for courses of study for the  Degree (Graduate of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) (GAMS).   Thus, the Faculty established by the Council under the 1951  Act has been authorized to recognize the educational  institutions or instructional institutions of Ayurvedic and  Unani Systems of Medicine and affiliate them to the  Faculty.   The Faculty is also authorized to conduct  examinations and confer degree of GAMS. 11.             The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970  (Central Act) provides for constitution of a Central  Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) and the maintenance of a  Central Register of Indian Medicine and for matters  connected therewith.  This Act was enacted by the  Parliament and came into force on 21.12.1970.  Introduction  to this Act reads as under:

     \023To consider problems relating to the Indian  system of medicine and Homoeopathy a number of  Committees were appointed by the Government of India,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

which had recommended that a statutory Central Council  on the lines of the Medicinal Council of India for  modern system of medicine should be established for  the proper development of these systems of medicine  (Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani).  In June, 1966 the  Central Council of Health at its 13th meeting, while  discussing the policy on Ayurvedic education,  recommended the setting up of a Central Council for  Indian system of medicine to lay down and regulate  standards of education and examinations,  qualifications and practice in these systems.  On the  basis of the above recommendations the Indian Medicine  Central Council Bill was introduced in the  Parliament\024.               

Sections 13A, 13B and 13C with their sub-sections have been  substituted by the Indian Medicine Central Council  (Amendment) Act, 2003 (No. 58 of 2003) w.e.f. 7.11.2003,  which prescribe for the permission for establishment of new  medical colleges, new courses of study, etc.; non- recognition of medical qualifications in certain cases; and  time for seeking permission of the Central Government for  certain existing or new medical colleges.  We shall deal  with these Sections in detail when we take up the  submissions of the counsel of the effect of these Sections  on the GAMS degree conferred on the students prior to  coming into force of Amending Act 58 of 2003.   Section 14  falling in Chapter III of the 1970 Central Act provides for  recognition of the medical qualifications granted by any  university, board or other medical institution in India  which are included in the Second Schedule.  The Second  Schedule provides for the recognized medical  qualifications, i.e. degrees/diplomas, awarded by the  States/Boards/Faculties/Universities before the  constitution of the Central Council of Indian Medicine.   Under the 1970 Act, the CCIM is competent to prescribe the  minimum standard of education including curriculam and  syllabi as well as other requirements like hospital,  library, students hostel, staff for college, staff for  hospital, library, herbal garden, requirements of various  departments of colleges, etc.  The Second Schedule  prescribes the institutions/colleges and the medical  qualifications which are recognized under the Act for the  different States.  For the State of Bihar, item No. 6 of  the Second Schedule reads as under:

\023---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Name of Universities, Board             Recognised Medical        Abbreviation    Remarks or Medical Institution                  Qualifications                  for                                                                 Registration -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- xxx                                     xxx                                             xxx

Bihar

6.  State Faculty of Ayurvedic        Graduate in Ayurvedic      G.A.M.S.     From 1953       and Unani Medicines,               Medicine and Surgery                        onwards .

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

     Patna, Bihar.

xxx                                     xxx                                             xxx \024

Under the 1970 Act, the State Faculty established under the  Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines  (appellant in LPA No. 463 of 2000 and appellant in Civil  Appeal No. 4643 of 2000) is empowered to confer a degree of  Graduate in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (GAMS) from 1953  onwards.   It is an admitted fact that the 1951 Act has not  been repealed by the 1970 Central Act nor it is the  submission of any counsel appearing for respective parties  that the provisions of the 1951 Act,  in regard to  conferment of GAMS degree, are repugnant to the provisions  of the 1970 Act.  The Second Schedule in the 1970 Act  itself recognizes the GAMS degree given by the State  Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Patna, Bihar from  1953 onwards and thus it cannot be said that the course  prescribed by the Faculty for conferment of a degree of  GAMS is de-recognised under the 1970 Act.   The 1970 Act  read with regulations made thereunder prescribes course for  conferment of a degree of BAMS by a University, whereas the  1951 Act prescribes course for conferment of a GAMS degree  by State Faculty.  Degree conferred by a university and  degree conferred by a faculty are different for which  separate courses have been prescribed.  The 1951 Act having  not been repealed by the 1970 Act, or till the Second  Schedule is not amended de-recognising the degree of GAMS,  the degree of GAMS given by the State Faculty will remain  intact.   No amendment has been brought about till today  whereby the degree of GAMS given by the State Faculty is  de-recognised under the 1970 Act. The 1951 State Act with  its rules and regulations, is a complete code for  recognizing and granting affiliation to indigenous medical  institutions by the Faculty, provide the course of study in  the institutions, and regulate the functioning of the  institutions affiliated to the Faculty.  The Faculty while  exercising its powers has to abide by the conditions laid  down in the rules and regulations.   12.             The 1951 State Act is consistent with the 1970  Central Act in regard to granting of the GAMS degree, as  the degree granted under the 1951 State Act is still  recognized under the 1970 Central Act.  The 1951 State Act  and the 1970 Central Act are complementary to each other.   The Faculty comes under the definition of ‘medical  institution\022 under Section 2(f) of the 1970 Central Act and  GAMS degree awarded by the Faculty is a recognised medical  qualification under Section 14 of the 1970 Central Act.    The Second Schedule of the 1970 Act grants  authority to  the Faculty to grant GAMS degree.   The High Court has,  therefore, clearly committed an error in holding that after  the BAMS degree has been introduced, GAMS degree issued by  the Faculty was de-recognised or not in operation after the  1970 Act came into force.   13.             The question, however, is whether with the  introduction of the Bihar Indigenous Medical Educational  Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982, the  students who have studied in the colleges which were not  recognized under the said 1982 Act could be conferred with  GAMS degree by the Faculty, and if such degrees are  conferred what shall be the fate of the degrees conferred  on such students?  We would also be required to consider

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

the effect of the Indian Medicine Central Council  (Amendment) Act, 2003, particularly Sections 13A, 13B and  13C which have been substituted by way of amendment in the  1970 Act and came into force on 7.11.2003, on the degrees  conferred on the students who have studied in the colleges  which have not sought or have not been given permission as  required under Section 13C of the 1970 Act to open the  college or continue the college, by the Central Government. 14.    It is urged by the learned counsel for the  appellants that the colleges which are affiliated to the  Faculty under the 1951 Act do not require any approval from  the State Government to start or to continue the  educational institution or to run the courses of study in  indigenous system of medicine leading to the degree,  diploma etc., as included in Second Schedule of the 1970  Act, as the 1951 Act is a self-contained code.  Whereas, it  is the submission of the learned counsel for the  respondents that after the Ordinance of 1981 and the Act of  1982 came into force, all colleges which are affiliated to  the Faculty or which have to be opened after the Ordinance  of 1981  and the Act of 1982 came into force,  require  permission of the State Government for opening or  continuing the colleges or institution running the  colleges, imparting education in indigenous system of  medicine.  If any college or the educational institution  running the college continues the educational facility,  imparting education in indigenous system of medicine  leading to the degree, diploma etc., as included in the Act  of 1982 without permission, would run the risk to their  students of not being conferred with a recognized degree  and penalties provided under the 1982 Act.  The counsel  further submits that after the introduction of 1982 Act the  power of the Faculty to grant affiliation is circumscribed  by the requirement of the State Government\022s permission to  open the college imparting education in Ayurvedic and Unani  systems of medicine. 15.             Under the 1951 Act, Section 17 provides for the  establishment of the Faculty.  Sub-section (2) of Section  17 provides :  it shall be the duty of the Faculty  to  prescribe the course of study and curricula for general  instructions, or  special refresher courses,  in   institutions affiliated to the Faculty.   By  virtue  of   clause  (d)  of sub-section (2) of Section 17, the Faculty  is to recognize educational or instructional institutions  of the Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine for purposes  of affiliation.  The manner in which the affiliation is to  be given is provided in Chapter II of the 1959 Regulations  whereunder an application for affiliation of an institution  shall be made to the Registrar, State Council of Ayurvedic  and Unani Medicines, Bihar.  After the application is  received for affiliation, the Faculty will scrutinize the  application and if it is satisfied on the basis of the  material supplied in the application or otherwise that the  institution proposed to be affiliated has nearly fulfilled  or is likely to fulfill all the conditions imposed by the  Council established under the Act and is likely to run  efficiently, it would depute an Inspector to visit the  institution, make inquiry and report back to the Faculty.   After the completion of the inquiry and submission of the  inspection report, the Faculty shall give recognition to  the institution either permanently or provisionally for a  limited period or may reject it.  The decision of the  Faculty shall be communicated to the institution concerned  as soon as possible.  It is clear from the aforesaid  provisions that the Faculty under the 1951 Act has been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

empowered with the power to affiliate institutions which  are imparting education in Ayurvedic and Unani systems of  medicine. 16.             The Bihar Indigenous Medical Educational  Institution (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 1981 which  provides for regulation and control of educational  institutions of indigenous system of medicine in the State  of Bihar was promulgated on 16th November, 1981.  Preamble  to the Ordinance reads as under :-         \023Whereas, the Legislature of the State of  Bihar is not in session ;

       And, whereas, the Governor of Bihar is  satisfied that inspite of repeated warnings from  Government through Press Notes and Notices  unregulated and indiscriminate opening of  Indigenous Medical Educational Institutions in  this State by persons or bodies registered under  the Societies Registration Act, 1960 or otherwise  without providing for adequate teaching  facilities is hampering the cause of Indigenous  Medical Education and is highly detrimental to  the interest of students, admitted to such  institutions after charging heavy capitation fee  or donation and as such the circumstances exist  which render it necessary to prescribe for  regulation and control on the opening of College  or Institutions of Indigenous System of Medicine  in the State of Bihar;\005\024

17.             The Ordinance was later replaced by introduction  of the Act, viz.,  the Bihar Indigneous Medical Educational  Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1981 (Act 20 of  1982) which came into force on 21st January, 1982.  Section  3 of the Act requires the Governing Body or Organizing  Committee or any body or institution intending to start  medical course of study of  indigenous system of medicine,  along with requisite information regarding the study, to  apply to the State Government in the Health Department.  18.             Section 5 contemplates that on receipt of an  application for permission to open the medical course of  study of indigenous system of medicine, the State  Government would cause the inspection of the body, agency,  college or institution by the Central Council of Indian  Medicine (CCIM) or Inspector appointed by the State  Government to see whether the conditions laid down by the  CCIM constituted under Section 3 of the 1970 Act are  fulfilled or not.  Section 6 further provides that on  completion of the inspection the State Government in the  Health Department will seek permission of the Government of  India and the CCIM of India for granting permission to the  starting of the course of medical studies in indigenous  system of medicine by the applicant.  Section 7 postulates  that to all private medical colleges and medical  institutions in indigenous system of medicine, preparing or  intending to prepare students for study in indigenous  system of medicine leading to degree, diploma, etc. and  which have not been permanently affiliated to any  University in the State of Bihar, the provisions of the  1982 Act shall apply.  The 1982 Act has been made  applicable to all private medical colleges and medical  institutions which are not permanently affiliated to any  University in the State of Bihar.  By virtue of Section 9,  the institutions which have been functioning without prior

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

permission or approval of the State Government are required  to apply for such permission within a period of one month  from the date of coming into force of the 1982 Act.  This  Section prohibits admission of the students in such  institutions till the grant of permission by the  Government.  It also provides that in case the application  is not moved within the stipulated period or the State  Government refuses permission, they will be deemed to have  been established in contravention of the provisions of the  Act.   Section 10 provides for penalty and a person  contravening any of the provisions of the Act is made  liable for punishment with a fine which may extend to Rs.  10,000/- and imprisonment for a term which may extend upto  three years.  In case of continuing contravention, such  person shall be liable to pay a further fine which may  extend to Rs.1,000/- per day after the date of the first  conviction for the period during which he is proved to have  persisted in such contravention.  The offence is made non- bailable and cognizable.  As per Section 11, if the  application moved for permission to start medical course of  study of indigenous system of medicine either under Section  3 or Section 9 is refused as the institution or college is  not found eligible or does not qualify for permission, it  is incumbent on the organizer of such institution to close  it down within a period of three months of refusal of  permission.  Section 15 gives authority to the State  Government to seize the accounts of an institution  contravening the provisions of the Act.  From these  provisions, it is apparent that after introduction of the  1981 Ordinance and the 1982 Act, the Governing Body or the  Organizing Committee or any body or institution intending  to start any course of study in indigenous system of  medicine is required to seek permission of the State  Government to open a private medical college or medical  institution for admitting the students to be conferred with  a degree, diploma, etc., as included in the Second Schedule  of the 1970 Act.  It is only the Governing Body or the  Organising Committee or any body or institution which has  been permanently affiliated to any University in the State  of Bihar is exempted from the provisions of the 1981  Ordinance or the 1982 Act.  Institutions already imparting  education in indigenous system of medicine are required to  take permission after coming into force of the 1982 Act.   19.             The Act provides for imposition of the fine and  imprisonment for any person who contravenes any of the  provisions of the 1981 Ordinance or the 1982 Act.  If the  permission is refused, the institution will be closed down.   Section 13 of the Act further authorizes the State  Government to authorize any officer to enter into the  premises of the institution contravening the provisions of  the 1981 Ordinance or the 1982 Act for the purposes of  inspection and carrying into effect the provisions of the  Ordinance or the Act.  Such officer may be empowered to  close down the institution and to lock and seal it.   The  Act also provides provision for seizure of the accounts by  the State Government of an institution contravening the  provisions of the Ordinance or the Act.   The Act arms the  State Government with various powers including the penal  powers.  Although the colleges were opened in the year 1992  without the authority or the permission of the State  Government as required under the Act, no steps have been  taken by the State of Bihar, and the students admitted in  the two institutions which were affiliated with the Faculty  were conferred with the GAMS Degree.   After reading the  provisions of the Act, it is apparent to us that the 1982

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

Act is supplementary to the 1951 Act.    The 1951 Act   although provides for the inspection of the institutions  which have to be affiliated to the Faculty,  does not lay  down that the conditions laid down by the CCIM are to be  followed and adhered to.  That has been provided under the  1982 Act.  So the colleges or the institutions which want  to impart education in the indigenous system of medicine  have not only to follow the conditions laid down by the  Faculty or the Council under the 1951 Act, but also under  the 1982 Act.  The college or the institution after the Act  came into force cannot continue without the permission of  the State Government as contemplated in the 1982 Act.   20.             We have examined  the provisions of the 1982 Act.   The counsel for the State or the University could not point  out as to what shall happen to the degrees given to the  students who studied in the colleges which have been  affiliated with the Faculty but without permission under  the 1982 Act.  We do not find any provision in the 1982 Act  which takes away the degree already granted to the students  conferred by the Faculty, recognized under the 1951 Act,  and is being accepted to be a recognized degree under the  1970 Act.  Therefore, by virtue of introduction of the 1982  Act, it cannot be said that the degrees conferred on the  students who have studied in the colleges which have not  been granted permission by the State Government  as  required under the 1982 Act, will be ipso facto illegal and  could not be given effect to.   However, we make it clear  that any body, agency, college or institution which has not  sought permission from the State Government would not be  granted affiliation by the Faculty under the 1951 Act and  the State Government shall take appropriate steps under the  1982 Act if any body, agency, college or institution is/are  functioning without the permission of the State Government  as required under the 1982 Act. 21.             It is then contended by the learned counsel for  the State that after the coming into force of the Indian  Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003 (for short  \023the Amending Act\024) on 7th November, 2003, if any medical  college established on or before the commencement of the  Amending Act does not seek permission of the Central  Government within the period of three years from the said  commencement, the medical qualification granted to any  student of such medical college shall not be deemed to be a  recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the  1970 Act.  It is submitted that the two colleges from where  the appellant-students were educated having not sought  permission from the Central Government under the 1970 Act,  the GAMS degree conferred on them shall not be a recognized  medical qualification for the purposes of the 1970 Act, as  a result whereof they are not eligible for admission for  higher course of study or for employment on the basis of  the GAMS degree conferred on them which is not a recognized  medical qualification.  For this proposition, the learned  counsel for the State has relied upon the provisions of  Sections 13A, 13B and 13C which have been introduced by  Amending Act of 2003.  For a better understanding of the  contentions, the relevant portions of the Sections are  reproduced hereunder:

\02313A. Permission for establishment of new medical  college, new course of study, etc.--(1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or  any other law for the time being in force,--         (a) no person shall establish a medical  college;                     or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

       (b) no medical college shall-- (i) open a new or higher course of study or  training, including a post-graduate course  of study or training, which would enable a  student of such course or training to  qualify himself for the award of any  recognised medical qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any  course of study or training including a  post-graduate course of study or training, except with the previous permission of the  Central Government obtained in accordance  with the provisions of this section. Explanation 1.--For the purposes of this section,  "person" includes any University or a trust, but  does not include the Central Government. Explanation 2.--For the purposes of this section,  "admission capacity", in relation to any course  of study or training, including post-graduate  course of study or training, in a medical  college, means the maximum number of students as  may be fixed by the Central Government from time  to time for being admitted to such course or  training. xxx                             xxx                                     xxx

13B.  Non-recognition of medical qualifications  in certain cases.--(1) Where any medical college  is established without the previous permission of  the Central Government in accordance with the  provisions of section 13A, medical qualification  granted to any student of such medical college  shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical  qualification for the purposes of this Act. (2) Where any medical college opens a new or  higher course of study or training including a  post-graduate course of study or training without  the previous permission of the Central Government  in accordance with the provisions of section 13A,  medical qualification granted to any student of  such medical college on the basis of such study  or training shall not be deemed to be a  recognised medical qualification for the purposes  of this Act. (3) Where any medical college increases its  admission capacity in any course of study or  training without the previous permission of the  Central Government in accordance with the  provisions of section 13A, medical qualification  granted to any student of such medical college on  the basis of the increase in its admission  capacity shall not be deemed to be a recognised  medical qualification for the purposes of this  Act.

13C.   Time for seeking permission for certain  existing medical colleges.-- (1) If any person  has established a medical college or any medical  college has opened a new or higher course of  study or training or increased the admission  capacity on or before the commencement of the  Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act,  2003, such person or medical college, as the case  may be, shall seek, within a period of three  years from the said commencement, permission of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

the Central Government in accordance with the  provisions of section 13A. (2) If any person or medical college, as the case  may be, fails to seek permission under sub- section (1), the provisions of section 13B shall  apply, so far as may be, as if permission of the  Central Government under section 13A has been  refused.\024

22.             For the purposes of the 1970 Act, ‘Indian  medicine\022 is a system of Indian medicine commonly known as  Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb.  Section 2(ea) of  the 1970 Act defines ‘medical college\022 to mean a college of  Indian medicine where a person undergoes a course of study  or training which will qualify him for the award of a  recognized medical qualification.  Section 13A(1) prohibits  any person to establish a medical college; and a medical  college to open a new or higher course of study or training  including a post-graduate course of study or training,  which would enable the students of that medical college for  the award of any recognised medical qualification or to  increase its admission capacity except with the previous  permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance  with the provisions of Section 13A.  Sub-sections (2), (3),  (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) of Section 13A lay down the  manner in which the Central Government is to be approached  for establishment of a new medical college or for opening  of a new higher course of study or increasing admission  capacity and how it would be dealt with.  Section 13B  postulates that where any medical college is established or  an established medical college opens a new higher course of  study or training or where any medical college increases  its admission capacity in any course of study or training  without the permission of the Central Government, the  medical qualification granted to any student of such  medical college or the higher course of study or training  or admission in the increased capacity in any course of  study, would not be a recognized medical qualification for  the purposes of the Act.  Section 13C, however, provides a  breathing time to the medical colleges which have been  established on or before the commencement of the Amending  Act of 2003 without the permission of the Central  Government to get such permission within a period of three  years from the commencement of the Act.   Therefore, the  colleges or the institutions which have not obtained the  permission of the Central Government may do so within a  period of three years from the commencement of the Act to  save the medical qualification conferred on the students of  such medical colleges  from the rigour of Section 13B of  the 1970 Act.  However, as per sub-section (2) of Section  13C, if any person or medical college fails to seek  permission within three years of commencement of the Act,  qualification granted to any student of such medical  institution shall not be  a recognised  medical  qualification and it shall be deemed that permission to  open or start a new course or increase strength of students  was refused by the Central Government.   Medical colleges  opened on or before the coming into force of the Amending  Act of 2003 are necessarily required to take permission  within three years to save the recognized medical  qualification of the students.  On their failure, the  medical qualification conferred on the students shall come  to naught.    Under Section 13A, a person who establishes a  medical college or a medical college opens a new higher  course of study or increases the admission capacity is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

required to move an application for permission of the  Central Government.  For obtaining permission as required  under Section 13A, every person or medical college is  required to submit a scheme in such form with requisite  fee, containing such particulars as provided under sub- section (3) of Section 13A.  The Central Government on  receipt of such application may require the applicant to  submit such other particulars as may be considered  necessary.  The Central Government after considering the  scheme and recommendations of the Central Council and after  obtaining such other  particulars as felt necessary, may  approve the scheme with such conditions which are  considered necessary.  The Central Government may also  disapprove the scheme.  Sub-section (6) of Section 13A  provides that where within a period of one year from the  date of submission of scheme to the Central Government, no  order is communicated by the Central Government to a person  or medical college, such scheme shall be deemed to have  been approved by the Central Government in the form in  which it was submitted.  From the aforesaid provisions, it  is apparent that an application seeking permission for  opening a medical college  has to be moved by a person  which also includes the university or a trust or a medical  college or those which are already running the medical  college when the Amending Act came into force.  Section 13A  nowhere provides that the students who have studied in the  medical colleges would be eligible to seek permission of  the Central Government under that Section.  Section 13A or  Section 13B or Section 13C nowhere contemplates moving of  an application by the students to take steps under Section  13A.  In such a situation, the question arises what shall  happen to the degrees conferred on the students who have  studied in the medical colleges established prior to the  commencement of the Amending Act where the Governing Body  or Organising Committee or any body or institution does not  take any step for seeking permission of the Central  Government and the period prescribed under Section 13C of  three years has expired or where the institution has been  closed down immediately after the commencement of the  Amending Act of 2003 and, therefore, no body is interested  in seeking permission of the Central Government.   23.             The provisions of Sections 13A, 13B and 13C of  the 1970 Act as introduced by the Amending Act of 2003, if  given retrospective operation, the medical qualification  acquired from the study in the medical colleges which have  been opened prior to the commencement of the  Amending Act  of 2003 and conferred medical qualification on the students  who studied in such medical colleges, the degrees so  conferred in the absence of the permission of the Central  Government would be non est though there is no fault on the  part of the students who have studied in the institutions  which are recognized and affiliated to the Faculty  under  the 1951 Act.    24.             In our opinion, where the legislature has used  words in an Act which if generally construed, must lead to  palpable injustice and consequences revolting to the mind  of any reasonable man, the court will always endeavour to  place on such words a reasonable limitation, on the ground  that the legislature could not have intended such  consequence to ensue, unless the express language in the  Act or binding authority prevents such limitation being  interpolated into the Act.  In construing an Act, a  construction ought not be put that would work injustice, or  even hardship or inconvenience, unless it is clear that  such was the intention of the legislature.  It is also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

settled that where the language of the legislature admits  of two constructions and if construction in one way would  lead to obvious injustice, the courts act upon the view  that such a result could not have been intended, unless the  intention had been manifested in express words.  Out of the  two interpretations, that language of the statute should be  preferred to that interpretation which  would frustrate it.   It is a cardinal rule governing the interpretation of the  statutes that when the language of the legislature admits  of two constructions, the court should not adopt the  construction which would lead to an absurdity or obvious  injustice.  It is equally well settled that within two  constructions that alternative is to be chosen which would  be consistent with the smooth working of the system which  the statute purported to be regulating and that alternative  is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty,  friction or confusion with the working of the system.  [See  Collector of Customs  v. Digvijaysinhji Spinning & Weaving  Mills Ltd. (1962) 1 SCR 896, at page 899 and His Holiness  Kesvananda Bharati  v.  State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461].

25.             The court must always lean to the interpretation  which is a reasonable one, and discard the literal  interpretation which does not fit in with the scheme of the  Act under consideration. 26.             In series of judgments of this Court, these  exceptional situations have been provided for. In  Narashimaha Murthy  v.  Susheelabai, (1996) 3 SCC 644 (at  page 647), it was held that:        \023\005The purpose of law is to prevent  brooding  sense of injustice. It is not the words of the  law but the spirit and eternal sense of it that  makes the law meaningful\005.\024         In the case of American Home Products Corporation v.  Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Another, AIR 1986 SC  137 (at page 166, para 66), it was held that:         \023 .. It is a well-known principle of  interpretation of statutes that a construction  should not be put upon a statutory provision  which would lead to manifest absurdity or  futility, palpable injustice, or absurd  inconvenience or anomaly. \005\024         Further, in the case of State of Punjab v. Sat Ram Das, AIR  1959 Punj. 497,  the Punjab High Court held that:        \023To avoid absurdity or incongruity,  grammatical and ordinary sense of the words can,  in certain circumstances, be avoided.\024        27.            The amendment brought about in the Indian  Medicine Central Council Act, 1970,  in 2003 by  introduction of Sections 13A, 13B and 13C are the  provisions for continuance of the institution which has not  obtained prior permission of the Central Government and,  therefore, time limit of three years has been provided  under Section 13C to regularize the institution\022s affairs  as required under the Act by seeking permission of the  Central Government.  Insertion of Section 13A in the 1970  Central Act in the year 2003 has regulated the opening of  an indigenous medical college.   The non-obstante clause  clearly indicates that a medical institution cannot be  established except with the prior permission of the Central  Government.  Under Section 13B, any medical qualification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

granted by the colleges established without the prior  permission of the Central Government is not a recognized  medical qualification.  The reasonable reading of Section  13C(1) puts the existing colleges at par with the new  colleges as both of them are required to seek permission  within three years from the commencement of the Amending  Act.  The phrase \021on or before\022 has made it clear that the  existing colleges are also required to seek permission and  there is no exemption.  Section 13C(2) further provides  that the medical qualification granted by  existing  colleges whose establishment has not been recognized by the  Central Government, the medical qualification would not be  a recognized qualification.  Similar requirement is to be  fulfilled by the new medical colleges opened, i.e., to seek  permission of the Central Government for the medical  qualification to be recognized qualification.  Thus, new  colleges or existing colleges cannot any more grant a  recognized qualification without the sanction of the  Central Government.  Section 13C(2) does not say that the  effect of non-permission by the Central Government to the  existing colleges after the Amending Act came into force  would render the medical qualifications already granted by  the existing colleges before the insertion of Sections 13A,  13B and 13C in 2003, un-recognised.  The whole spectrum of  the amendment brought about by introducing Sections 13A,  13B and 13C indicates that it has an application from the  date they have been introduced by an amendment in the 1970  Central Act.  The effect of the amendment brought about is  clear to us that all the medical colleges which are in  existence or the medical colleges which have to be  established should compulsorily seek permission of the  Central Government within the period provided and on  failure to get the permission of the Central Government the  medical qualification granted to any student of such  medical college shall not be a recognized medical  qualification for the purposes of the 1970 Act.  The  established colleges are also required to seek permission  of the Central Government for the medical qualification to  be recognized medical qualification but it would not mean  that the already conferred medical qualification of the  students studied in such previously established medical  colleges would not be a recognised medical qualification  under the 1970 Act. 28.             On a reasonable construction of these Sections,  we hold that the provisions of Section 13B whereby the  qualification granted to any student of a medical college  would not be deemed to be a recognized medical  qualification would not apply.   When a degree has been  legally conferred on the students prior to the commencement  of the Amending Act of 2003, it shall be treated as a  recognized degree although the medical college has not  sought permission of the Central Government within a period  of three years from the commencement of the Amending Act of  2003. 29.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed.   The judgment of the High Court is set aside and we hold  that the GAMS degree conferred on the appellant-students  shall be treated as a recognized degree for the purposes of  taking admission to the higher courses of study and also  for the purposes of employment. 30.     There shall be no order as to costs.