Supreme Court Escalates AYUSH-Allopathy Parity Dispute to Larger Bench

New Delhi – In a move with profound implications for service jurisprudence and the national healthcare framework, the Supreme Court of India has referred the contentious issue of parity between doctors of indigenous medical systems (AYUSH) and their allopathic counterparts to a larger bench. Citing a "divergence of opinion" in previous judicial pronouncements, a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran deemed it necessary to seek an authoritative ruling on whether AYUSH practitioners are entitled to the same service conditions, pay scales, and retirement age as allopathic doctors in government service.

The decision, delivered on October 17, elevates a long-standing debate from various High Courts to the apex court's constitutional scrutiny, promising a definitive settlement of a complex legal question that intersects constitutional law, administrative policy, and the very structure of public healthcare in India.

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Question of Retirement Age

The immediate catalyst for the Supreme Court's intervention is a series of appeals, most notably one filed by the Rajasthan government against a High Court judgment. The controversy began in 2016 when the state, citing an acute shortage of experienced medical professionals, increased the superannuation age for allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 years. However, this extension was not granted to doctors practicing under the AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy) systems.

Aggrieved AYUSH doctors challenged this differential treatment before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing it was a clear violation of their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that their role in patient treatment and healing was fundamentally similar to that of allopathic doctors, making the classification arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court concurred, ruling in their favor and directing the state to reinstate AYUSH doctors who had retired after March 31, 2016, but had not yet reached the age of 62.

Appealing this decision, the state government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the policy was a targeted intervention driven by public interest. Mehta highlighted the critical shortage of allopathic practitioners who handle emergency, surgical, and critical care—a situation not mirrored in the AYUSH sector. The potential administrative and financial fallout of the High Court's order, which could have led to the reinstatement of approximately 1,000 doctors, underscored the urgency of the state's appeal.

Judicial Ambiguity and the Need for an Authoritative Pronouncement

The Supreme Court bench, in its referral order, acknowledged the crux of the problem: a history of conflicting judicial decisions. The court noted that different High Courts have taken divergent views, and even previous Supreme Court benches have not settled the matter conclusively. This lack of a uniform legal standard has created uncertainty and fueled litigation across the country.

The bench explicitly stated, "We are of the opinion that there should be an authoritative pronouncement on the issue and we hence refer the matter to a larger bench." This referral is a procedural mechanism used by the Court to resolve conflicts between judgments of benches of the same strength, thereby ensuring legal certainty and consistency.

The core legal question revolves around the principle of "reasonable classification" under Article 14. While the Constitution guarantees equality, it permits the state to treat different classes of persons differently, provided the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.

The State's Argument: A Distinction Based on Function and Scarcity

The primary argument advanced by state governments against parity hinges on the functional differences between the two medical streams. The Court's order heavily referenced its own 2023 judgment in State of Gujarat & Ors vs Dr P.A. Bhatt & Ors , which appears to favor a distinction. In that case, the Court observed that classification based on educational qualifications is not inherently discriminatory.

The bench reiterated the functional distinctions outlined in Dr P.A. Bhatt , noting:

"It is the MBBS doctors, the allopathy practitioners, who are dealing with critical care, immediate lifesaving measures, invasive procedures including surgeries and even postmortem, none of which can be carried out by any of the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine."

The states contend that the policy to extend the retirement age for allopathic doctors is directly linked to the objective of ensuring the availability of practitioners skilled in these specific, life-saving domains. The argument, as recorded by the court, is that "The dearth of medical practitioners as occurring in allopathy does not exist in the indigenous systems of medicine, especially when critical life-saving therapeutic, interventional and surgical care is not carried out by the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine.”

This functional distinction, the states argue, places allopathic doctors in a different class, justifying differential service conditions as a matter of public good and necessity.

Interim Measures and Future Implications

Pending the larger bench's final verdict, the Supreme Court has issued interim directives to balance the equities. States are permitted, at their discretion, to continue the services of AYUSH doctors beyond their current retirement age up to the age applicable to allopathic doctors. However, this extension is to be on a temporary basis.

Crucially, during this interim period, these doctors will receive only half of their pay and allowances. The final settlement of their emoluments is contingent on the outcome of the reference. If the larger bench rules in favor of the AYUSH doctors, they will receive full back pay and allowances for the extended period. If the ruling goes against them, the amount paid will be adjusted against their pension. This arrangement provides a provisional solution that protects the interests of both the doctors and the state exchequer until the law is settled.

The forthcoming decision by the larger bench will be a landmark in Indian service and constitutional law. 1. Defining 'Equals' in Public Service: The ruling will provide a definitive interpretation of "equals" under Article 14 in the context of different professional qualifications and job responsibilities within the same broad sector (healthcare). 2. Financial Impact on States: A decision in favor of parity would have significant financial repercussions for state governments, who would have to revise pay scales, pension benefits, and potentially pay substantial arrears to thousands of AYUSH doctors. 3. Healthcare Policy: The judgment will inevitably influence how central and state governments approach the integration of traditional and modern medicine. It could either reinforce the existing hierarchy or pave the way for a more unified public health system.

For legal practitioners, the case presents a classic constitutional dilemma: balancing the fundamental right to equality against the state's prerogative to formulate policy based on administrative exigencies and the public interest. The final verdict will set a binding precedent, shaping the legal landscape for service conditions across various professional cadres in government employment for years to come.