Judgment

Quadri, J.-These cases raise questions of general importance and practical significance-Questions relating not only to the right to practise medical profession but also to the right to life which includes health and well-being of a person. The controversy in these cases was triggered off by the issuance of declarations by the State Governments under clause (iii) of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cos­metics Rules, 1945 (for short ‘the Drugs Rules’) which defines “Regis­tered Medical Practitioner”. Under such declarations, notified Vaids/Hakims claim right to prescribe Allopathic drugs covered by the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Drugs Act’). Furthermore, Vaids/ Hakims who have obtained degrees in integrated courses claim right to practise allopathic system of medicine.

2. In exercise of the power under clause (iii) of Rule 2(ee), the State of Punjab issued Notification No. 9874-THBTT-67/34526 dated 29th October, 1967 declaring all the Vaids/Hakims who had been registered under the East Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1949 and the Pepsu Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 2008 BK and the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963 as