Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. VEDPAL MALIK versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Vedpal Malik v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 76363 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7924 (21 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.76363 of 2005

Dr. Vedpal Malik

Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors.

*****

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction upon the Chief Medical Officer to register the name of the petitioner as a Doctor. From the records we find that the petitioner has annexed a copy of the certificate issued by the Indian Medicine Board, Uttar Pradesh showing that the petitioner has been registered on 20th June, 1972.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a certificate said to have been issued by Gurukul Mahavidhyalaya, Jwalapuram, Haridwar but there is nothing on the record to indicate that the said College was ever recognised under the provisions of any Act.

The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 came into force on 21st December, 1970.  Section 17 of the Central Act provides (1) that subject to other provisions contained in the Act any qualification included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine, and no person other than practitioner of India medicine, save as provided in Section 28, who possessed recognized medical qualification and is enrolled in the State Register or Central Register for Indian Medicine (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or physician or any other office  in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority, and shall practice Indian medicine in any State.

With the enforcement of Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970, only those persons who hold qualifications prescribed and included under Second, Third and Fourth Schedule can be enrolled in any State Register.  The emphasis in the Central Act is on qualifications, without which no one can have knowledge to practice Indian Medicine.  A conspectus of the provisions of the Act, which provides for recognition of medical qualifications and Central register of India Medicine, and the object and reasons of the Act demonstrate that the Parliament insisted to regulate the standard of education and the registration of only those persons who have valid qualification.  The provisions of the Central Act over rides the provisions of all the legislation enacted by the State Government.  Even if the U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939 is taken to be the existing law, the provisions of Central Act of 1970 over ride the State Act.  The provisions of registration under section 50 (2) of the State Act, thus save only those persons who hold valid qualification in the schedule provided under Central Act are entitled to be enrolled in the State register or Central register of Indian Medicine or practice Indian medicine in any State.  Since the petitioner does not have any qualification he is not entitled to practice Indian Medicine even if they are registered in the State register maintained under U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939.   The experience cannot be a substitute to a proper qualification.  Unless a person holds adequate knowledge of a system of medicine any experience gained by him, is not of any benefit.  A person who has no qualifications at all cannot be allowed to practice, as he becomes a potential danger to public health.

A combined reading of the Indian Medicine Act, 1939, U.P. Indian Medicine Institutions (Miscellaneous and Provisions) Act, 1982 and the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 shows that only those medical practitioners who hold qualification from the Institutions detailed in the Second Schedule of the Central Act, 1970 and from the Colleges given in the Schedule under U.P. Act of 1939, and U.P. Act, 1982 can be registered after 1970, with the Board of Indian Medicine U.P. and only these qualified persons are entitled to practice in Indian Medicine in the State of U.P.

In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand Vs. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 579; Medical Council of India Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 2073; Subhashis Bakshi and other Vs. West Bengal Medical Council (2003) 9 SCC 269, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to practice medicine of only those persons, who are qualified and are registered on the Indian Medical Register or on any State Medical Register.  In Dr. Mehboob Alam Vs. State of U.P. (2002) Cr. LJ 1218, this Court has held that a person qualified and registered  in any branch of medicine cannot practice any other branch.  A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.320 of 2004, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Goel & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 27.4.2004  has upheld the directions dated 28.1.2004  in contempt petition No.820 of 2002, and has insisted upon the qualifications to practice medicine in the State.

The right to health included under Article 21 of Constitution of India is to be balanced with the right to practice medicine under Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (6).    Only those persons who hold valid and recognized medical qualifications and are registered under the existing legislation can be allowed to practice medicine in the State.

The writ petition is, consequently, dismissed.

Dt.21.12.2005

GS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.