SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 171

2012 (4) SCC 483
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., A.K. PATNAIK & SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
K.B. NAGUR M.D. (AYU.) - Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 33 of 2009 with I.A. NOS. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 249 of 2011, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 736 of 2011, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 737 of 2011, Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 738-739 of 2011
Decided on : 24-02-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 7 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 or any part thereof is neither ultra vires nor violative of Articles 14 and/or 16 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:(a) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 – Section 7 – Term of office of elected members – Five years or till the newly elected members assume office – Legislative intent to avoid vacuum in working of the statutory body – Provision not unconstitutional. (Para 13)

       (1999) 8 SCC 471 – Relied upon

       (b) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 – Section 3, 4 and 7 – Constitution of Central Council by election and /or nomination – Tenure five years – Elections should be held within five years – In case of exceptional circumstances election should be held within reasonable time after expiry of tenure not exceeding three months. (Para 24, 25)

       Facts of the case:

       This writ petition has been filed for following prayers:

       (a) direct the Union of India to hold elections to the Central Council of Indian Medicines and to constitute the same in accordance with law;

        (b) further direct the Union of India to fill up the posts of any member who has completed five years within one month;

        (c) Strike down and quash the last clause in section 7 of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 reading as "or until his successor shall have been duly elected or nominated, whichever is longer" as contrary to the very Act, unconstitutional and undemocratic and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

       Finding of the Court:

       Section 7 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 or any part thereof is neither ultra vires nor violative of Articles 14 and/or 16 of the Constitution of India.

       Result: Petitions disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.-The Central Council of Indian Medicine (for short `the Central Council') is a statutory body, constituted in terms of Section 3 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short `the Act'). Section 4 of the Act mandates that election under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act shall be conducted by the Central Government in accordance with the rules as may be made in this behalf. Where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Central Council, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final. Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 3 provides that the Central Council shall consist of such number of members, not exceeding five, as may be determined by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule of the Act for each of the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems of medicine, from each State, in which a State Register of the Indian Medicine is maintained, to be elected from amongst themselves, by the persons enrolled on that Register as registered practitioners of the respective systems. Section 3(1)(b) of the Act states that one member each of the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems of medicine from each University were to be elected from amongst themselves by the members of the Faculty or Department of the respective system of medicine of that University. The Central Government could also nominate such number of members, not exceeding thirty percent of the total members elected, under the above mentioned clauses (a) and (b) to the Central Council, from amongst persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of Indian medicine, in accordance with Section 3(1)(c) of the Act. These elected members are to elect their President, to be known as President of the Central Council and a Vice-President for each of the systems of medicine.

2. This elected Central Council, so constituted, is to discharge various functions and duties as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, which include the grant of recognition to medical colleges/courses, maintenance of education standards, appointment of Inspectors, conduct and supervision of examinations, and even the withdrawal of recognition, if necessary. A register is to be maintained of the persons possessing requisite qualification in the type of medicine which the member is eligible to practice and who have been registered by the State Board and which register has to be updated with regard to the qualification attained by members of the respective professions subsequently.

3. As is evident from the above narrated provisions, the Central Council discharges very significant and important functions which would affect not only education in these three systems but even their practice and treatment of thousands of patients under these systems. The statute places an obligation upon the Central Government to hold these elections and ensure that the Central Council works smoothly and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 7 of the Act refers to the tenure that an elected member is entitled to enjoy, upon his election to the Central Council. This Section deals with the term of the Office of the President, Vice- President and the members of the Central Council. The term of office for all these persons is five years from the date of election or nomination, as the case may be, or until a successor has been duly elected or nominated, whichever is longer. The latter part of this Section caused serious impediment in the proper functioning of the Central Council primarily for two reasons :

(a) the Central Government did not take appropriate steps to hold fresh elections and

(b) the persons who were elected and were interested in continuing as such, took advantage of this provision and continued in office far beyond five years as nobody was duly elected to replace them.

4. The petitioner is an Ayurvedic doctor and holds the degree of Ayurvedic Medici





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top