SC's restriction on unrecognised ayurvedic medicos

New Delhi, Mar 1 (PTI) 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.

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.

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. PTI RB
PMR
NNNN