Back
Bombay High Court
K.MADHAVA REDDY,S.M.DAUD
Arun H.Bakle - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 08/14/1985
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT - ENROLMENT OF FOREIGN MEDICAL GRADUATES - PRACTICAL TRAINING - REGULATION - ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS - VALIDITY - RIGHT TO BE ENROLLED - SECTION 13(3), 15(1), 33 - MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956.
Fact of the Case:
Dr. Arun Bakle, a cardiologist with a medical degree from Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University, sought enrolment on the Maharashtra State Medical Register under Section 15(1) of the Medical Council Act, 1956. He had undergone one year of practical training during his studies in the USSR and claimed that he met the requirements for enrolment under Section 13(3) of the Act. However, the Medical Council of India (MCI) insisted that he undergo an additional one year of practical training in India, citing a letter issued by the MCI in 1981.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MCI's letter did not constitute a valid regulation under Section 33 of the Act because it lacked the previous sanction of the Central Government and did not satisfy the essential pre-conditions for promulgating a valid regulation. The court also held that even if the letter were considered a regulation, it could not override the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 13(3) and Section 15, which entitled a person with a recognized foreign medical qualification and who had undergone practical training in the country that awarded the qualification to be enrolled without further training in India.
Issues: 1. Whether the MCI's letter requiring foreign medical graduates to undergo one year of practical training in India constituted a valid regulation under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956. 2. Whether the MCI's letter, even if considered a regulation, could override the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 13(3) and Section 15, which entitled a person with a recognized foreign medical qualification and who had undergone practical training in the country that awarded the qualification to be enrolled without further training in India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A regulation under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956, requires the previous sanction of the Central Government and must be formally issued under the Council's seal with a certificate of approval from the Central Government. The MCI's letter did not meet these requirements and therefore did not constitute a valid regulation. 2. A regulation cannot override the provisions of the Act, and any attempt to do so would be ultra vires. Section 13(3) and Section 15 of the Act clearly entitled a person with a recognized foreign medical qualification and who had undergone practical training in the country that awarded the qualification to be enrolled without further training in India. The MCI's letter, even if considered a regulation, could not take away this right.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and declared the petitioner entitled to be enrolled on the State Medical Register under Sections 23, 33, and 15 read with Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956. The court also rejected the MCI's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
K.MADHAVA REDDY, C.J.:- Dr. Arun Bakle, M. D. Cardiologist from Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University, U.S.S.R., having undergone one year's practical training (interneship) during 1979-80 as required by the rules and regulations in force in U.S.S.R. sought enrolment under S.15(1), Medical Council Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the Maharashtra State Medical Register. It is his case that he has practised medicine as a physician and was a permanent adviser at surgical departments in the Moscow Clinical Hospital No. 64 during the year 1982-83. He also did some research work in September 1983. He was, however, required to leave the work abruptly due to sudden demise of his father at Sholapur in Maharashtra State. With a view to start practice at Solapur in Maharashtra State, he applied to the Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi, respondent 2 herein, for registration. By a letter D/-7-11-1983, respondent 2 informed him (Exh. 'B') that "Indian Nationals holding recognised foreign medical qualifications included in Part II of Sch. 3 to Medical Council Act, 1956, are eligible for registration and practice in India. They have to undergo one year's practical training in an approved hospital in India in the subjects of Medicine, Surgery, Obst. and Gyn. and Community Medicine i.e. three months in each subject after taking provisional registration under S.25(2), Medical Council Act, 1956." He reiterated his request clarifying that as he has already undergone practical training, he should be granted registration without insisting upon further practical training. However, respondent 2 wrote to him on 16-4-1984 (Exh. 'F') that in view of the revised procedure, he is required to undergo practical training in an approved hospital in India for one year. The petitioner, thereupon issued a notice (Exh. 'G') through his Counsel, and called upon respondent 2 to grant registration. The 2nd respondent, by his letter D/-24-4-1984 (Exh. 'H') informed him that the Medical Council of India, "in consultation with the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health, decided in public interest in February, 1981 that thereafter all Indian Nationals holding foreign recognised medical qualification will be required to undergo practical training in an approved hospital in India in order to familiarise themselves with the Indian conditions irrespective of the fact whether they had undergone the prescribed training in the concerned foreign country or not and since then this procedure has been followed in all cases uniformally." To a further request, the petitioner was informed that no further correspondence would be entertained. He, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Art.226 of the Constitution, for a writ of certiorari to quash the above said communication, and for a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue permanent registration as also to grant him enrolment under S. 13(1) read with S. 15 of the Act, without insisting upon completion of one year's practical training (interneship).
2. The Union of India, and the Registrar, Maharashtra Medical Council respondent 3 herein, have chosen not to file any affidavit in reply. The Secretary of the Medical Council of India, in his affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent 2 herein, reiterated the stand taken in the communications addressed to the petitioner referred to above. It was further stated that the Medical Council of India, is the authority to look after the minimum standards of medical education in India and to lay down norms for registration of medical practitioners in India. With a view to maintain the minimum medical standards and for maintaining the health and welfare of the people, the Medical Council of India, after mature consideration and in consultation with the Govt. of India decided that Indian Doctors who qualify from outside India, should undergo at least practical training for a minimum period of one year in this country so that
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
