The court emphasized the distinction between different systems of medicine and the significance of recognized qualifications in determining the right to practice in a particular system of medicine.

Arun Mishra, J.

1. This petition has been preferred by the Petitioners claiming relief to declare Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 as ultra vires. A prayer has also been made to direct the Respondents to allow the doctors registered under Homoeopathic System of Medicines to impart life saving drugs in emergency in the same manner as it has allowed to the Ayurvedic Doctors with Modern Medicine and Surgery.

2. It is averred by the Petitioners that the Petitioner No. 1 is a duly registered society under the M.P. Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973. In Madhya Pradesh Homoeopathic Doctors are not permitted to use life saving Allopathic Drugs in emergency situation, while Xth Class pass workers are allowed to use these drugs. The action of the Respondents in prohibiting the Petitioners to use life saving drugs is totally unjust. The holders of DHMS qualification are not permitted to impart the aforesaid life saving Allopathic Drugs, though they have obtained instructions in practical course and introduction of Allopathic subjects, to deal with emergency situations.

3. It is further averred in the petition that they have also been given training for the use of life saving drugs. Thus, there is no rhyme or reason to deprive them of permission to prescribe life saving Allopathic Drugs in emergency situations. Instructions have been given to the Petitioners, whereas on the other hand, Ayurvedic Doctors are permitted to impart Allopathic life saving drugs in emergency situations. Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987, which permits only Ayurvedic Doctors to impart the aforesaid medicines, be declared ultra vires as the same is arbitrary and discriminatory to the Homoeopathic Doctors. Homoeopathic System is recognized by the State and is controlled by the Central Act, i.e., Homoeopathic Central Council Act, 1973. Violation of Article 19(1)(g), 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution is alleged.

4. The Respondents have filed their reply contending that the holders of diploma in Homoeopathic Medicines cannot be permitted to practice on Allopathic side. The subject matter of "medicine" is within the Legislative competence of the State Legislature and is dealt with by the entry Nos. 25 and 26 of Lists III to VII Schedule of the Constitution. There is no violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner and Section 24 of the M.P. Ayurvigyan Perishad Adhiniyam, 1987 cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary. The decision has been taken on the basis of the guidance given by the experts, to allow Ayurvedic doctors to prescribe life saving drugs in emergency situations as provided in Section 24 of the Adhiniyam, 1987. Since the decision is taken by expert's body, this Court cannot substitute the expert opinion.

5. It is further contended in the return that paramedical persons are only entitled to distribute the medicine under the strict supervision of a competent medical practitioner, but these persons are not entitled to prescribe any Allopathic Drugs or impart the medicines without the supervision of competent doctor. They cannot prescribe any medicines which is prohibited by the law. Considering the expertise of Homoeopathic System of Medicines, it cannot be said that they have expertise to impart the medicines of Allopathic System. Homoeopathic System has been defined in Section 2(e) of M.P. Homoeopathic Perishad Adhiniyam, 1976. The right and privilege available to Homoeopathic Doctors are on the basis of qualification recognized under Medical Council of India Act, 1956. The provisions of M.P. Chikitsa Adhiniyam, 1961 have also been made applicable for grant of degree in Homoeopathic System of Medicines. The decision of the Apex Court in Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Paid and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 332 has been relied upon, in which it has been held that a person who does not have the knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a quack. The same question was raised in the Vidh