A classification based on geographical location, without any rational basis, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
MAHARASHTRA MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT, 1961 - SECTION 18(2)(B)(II) - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 14 - DISCRIMINATION - CLASSIFICATION BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION - UNJUSTIFIED - SECTION 18(2)(B)(II) AND SECTION 33 STRUCK DOWN.
Fact of the Case:

Two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 18(2)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, which required applicants for inclusion in the list of medical practitioners to have been regularly practising in the Bombay area of the State on 4th November 1951.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 18(2)(b)(ii) violated Article 14 of the Constitution as it discriminated between medical practitioners in the Bombay area of the State and those in other areas of the State, without any rational basis. The Court also held that Section 18(2)(b)(ii) and Section 33, which prohibited medical practice by unregistered and unlisted persons, formed a single scheme and could not be severed. Therefore, the Court struck down both Section 18(2)(b)(ii) and Section 33.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 18(2)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether Section 18(2)(b)(ii) and Section 33 of the Act could be severed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of medical practitioners based on geographical location, with different requirements for inclusion in the list of practitioners, was not justified by any rational basis. 2. Section 18(2)(b)(ii) and Section 33 formed a single scheme and could not be severed, as striking down Section 18(2)(b)(ii) would have resulted in expanding the scope of the penal provision of Section 33 beyond what the Legislature intended.
Final Decision: The Court declared Section 18(2)(b)(ii) and Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, to be ultra vires the Constitution.

JUDGMENT - Tarkunde, J.

1. These two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 18(2)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.

2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2066 of 1966 comes from Sind which now forms part of West Pakistan. He claims that his grand-father and his father were well known physicians practising Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, After the partition of the country, the family migrated to Hurni camp at Baroda. The petitioner says that he started an independent dispensary at Baroda for practice in Unani and Ayurvedic Systems of Medicine and that he was practising in Baroda from 1950 to 1954. In 1954 he shifted to Ulhasnagar near Bombay, where he has been practising since then. After the passing of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, he applied to the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine set up by the Act for inclusion of his name in the list maintained under Section 18 thereof. Section 18(2) (b)(ii) of the Act requires that the applicant should satisfy the Committee of the Board "that on the 4th November 1951 he was regularly practising any such system of medicine (i. e. any system other than the Homoeopathic or the Biochemic System of Medicine) in the Bombay area of the State". In Section 3(6) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, the expression "Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra" has been defined to mean "the area of the State of Maharashtra excluding the Vidarbha region and the Hyderabad area of that State". According to the petitioner, he was practising on 4th November 1951 at Baroda, which was then included in the Bombay State but is not now a part of the State of Maharashtra. His application for having his name included in the list was rejected by the Committee of the Board on the ground that on 4th November 1951 he was not practising any system of medicine in the Bombay area of the State. An appeal filed by the petitioner to the Appellate Authority under the Act was also rejected for the same reason. The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for having these orders of the Committee and the Appellate Authority quashed and set aside.

3. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 82 of 1966 also comes from Sind which is now a part of West Pakistan. The petitioner says that her father was a medical graduate of the Bombay University, that he was practising allopathic system of medicine in Sind, and that she (the petitioner) started helping him in practice from about 1937 when she was about 16 years of age. After the partition of the country, the family migrated to Akbar Camps at Thana in 1948. In October 1948 the petitioners father was appointed a Medical Officer at Bhavnagar in Saurashtra and the petitioner also shifted there. The petitioner claimed that she had an independent practice in allopathic medicine at Bhavnagar from 1948 to 1958. In 1958 the petitioner shifted to Poona, where she started a maternity home which is still being run by her. On 12th August 1963 she applied to the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine to have her name included in the list maintained under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. Her application was rejected by the Committee of the Board, and in appeal by the Appellate Authority, on the ground that on 4th November 1951 she was practising, according to her case, at Bhavnagar which is not a part of the Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra. In her petition she prays that the said orders of the Committee and the Appellate Authority be quashed and set aside or, in the alternative, that Section 12(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act.

1961, be struck down as violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

4. Before proceeding further it would be convenient to dispose of one submission made by Mr. Bhatia for the petitioner in Special Civil A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis