1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No.______OF 2010

(Arising out of the impugned Final judgment and Order dated

05.01.2010 passed in Writ petition No.22115 of 2009, and impugned judgment and final order dated
23.02.2010 passed in Writ petition No. 30259 of 2008 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras)

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Position of Parties

In the High court In this court

Writ Petition No. 22115 of 2009

The Private Medical Practitioners

Association of India, Tamil Nadu Branch

Rep. by its President,

Tajnul Hussain

No.339, Triplicate High Road,

Triplicate, Chennai-5

Tamil Nadu Not a party Petitioner

VERSUS

1) The Chairman
Legal Advisory Committee, Indian Medical Association.
(Registration XXI No. 325/1934)
Tamil Nadu Branch, Kattathurai,
Kanyakumari District.

Tamil Nadu Petitioner Resp No-1

2) The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home Department,
2

Fort St. George,

Chennai-9. Tamil Nadu Resp No-1 resp No-2

3) The Director,
Public Heaith and Preventive Medicine,
DMS Complex-18 Tamil Nadu Resp No.-3 Resp-4

ALL CONTESTINGRESPONDENTS

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUION

To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Indian and his companion Justices of the Supreme Court of Indian.

The humble Petition of the

Petitioners above named:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

(A) That this Special Leave Petitione Petitin under Article 136 of the Consitition of India arises out of
the impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 passed in Writ petition No. 22115 of
2009 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras whereby the Wirt Petition was disposed of with a
direction to the Respondent No-1 to furnish to the government the names of those who,
according to its opinion , are allegedly practicing medicine without to the government to take
immediate direction to t h government to take mediated acting against such persons on receipt
of the said information.
(B) Also, the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arises out of the
impugned Final Judgment and order 23.2.2010 passed in Wirt Petition no.30259 of 2008 by the
Hon’ble Court of Mardras whereby the Writ Petition was dispensed of with a direction that the
Respondent No-1 furnish the ames of those who pose themselves as doctors or who are
qualified otherwise than doctors, and who, according to the opinion of the Respondent No-1 are
prescribing allopathic medicine, administering allopathic treatment and using the prefix Doctor
(Dr.) before their names in prescriptions and advertisements to the superintendent of police as
well as the District Medical Officer concerned so as to take action against them.

2). SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW

That this Special Leave Petition (Civil) raises, inter alia, the following questions of law of substantial
public importance:-
a) Whether the Indian Medical Association could be given a free hand to decide who possessed a ‘valid
license’ when the term ‘valid license’ is itself not defined or explained in the impugned order?
b) Whether the Public Interest Litigating filed by Indian Medical Associating to monopolise the
professing of its members could be entertained by the Hon’ble High Court?
c) Whether in a Pubic Interest Litigating, the Hon’ble High Court can grant a blanket order without
defining the rights and liabilities of the parties concerned?
3

d) Whether the members of the Petitioner Associating could be branded as Quacks and be stripped of
their right to practice their profession without even being heard merely on the basis of the vested
claims of the Indian Medical Association?
e) When a matter is pending before an equivalent bench of the High, court, cold a contrary view be
taken in another matter without giving an opportunity to the former litigants?

3)DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RUEL 4(2).

The petitioner states that no other petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal has been filed against
the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 in Writ Petition No. 22115 of 2009 and
order dated 23.02.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 30259 of 2008 by the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras.

4) DECLARATIN IN TERMS OF RULES 6:

The Annexures produced along with the SLP is a true copy of the documents and however they do
not form part of the record of the case in the Hon’ble High Court below against which orders the
leave to appeal is sought for in this petition. These annexures could not brought on record in the
High Court as the Petitioner Association was not a party before the High Court and therefore, an
application for filing additional documents had been filed along with this Special Petition.

5) Being aggrieved of impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 in Writ Petition No.22115
of 2009, and order dated 23.02.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.30259 of 2008 by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras, the Petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court by way of this petition, inter alia,
on the following:

GROUNDS.

a) Because The Indian Medical Association has abused the process of law by approaching the High
Court under the guise of PIL and by procuring a misconstrued order intended only to monopolies
the practice of its own members.
b) Because the petitioner was not a party before the Hon’ble High Court and therefore no
opportunity was given to the Petitioner to express it s strands on this issue. Has any opportunity
been given, the petitioner cold have very well brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court
the documents which support the stand of the right of the members of the petitioner
associating to practice their profession.
c) Because, had the petitoern been heard by the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner could have
brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court the position that has been taken by the Central

Over the past four decades to allow such practitioners o contoured their profession taking into
consideration the issues of affordable medical aid and health care to the rural masses, and the steps
taken by various state governments as well as the situation existing in those states.
4

d) Because, in the context of Ground ‘b’ and ‘c’, the Hon’ble High Court was unaware of the existing
legal sitatuion and has thus misconstrued their yeoman service to the rural masses as quackery
and further, with due respect the Hon’ble High Court , has branded them ignominiously as
quacks simply by accepting the version of the Indian Medical Association whose least concern
for the rural masses is well known at the nation level and it had van been as subject of serious
debate for quite some years now.
e) Because the Highly Court has entertained two similar petitions from the same petitioners and
has ordered as prayed for by them without considering the relevant aspects of the case.
f) Because the High Court has failed to consider the fact the there was no intention of public
interest in the PILs but only a private interest to monopolies a particular system of medical
practice.
g) Because theta when W.P. No. 9691-2006, filed by the Petitioner Association is pending before an
equivalent bench of the same Court, the High Court not to have proceeded to depose of the
PILs, without divining an opportunity to and after hearing submissions of the petitioner
Association.
h) Because the High Court not to have granted a blanket orders without defining or describing that
what specific violations would attract penal prosecution?
i) Because The High Court while fixing a criminal liability on someone, ought to have came out with
a definite definition of the term valid license.
j) Because the High Court by Incorporating the Sentence “The-Petitioner-Association should
furnish to the Respondents, the names of such persons who are allegedly practicing medicine
without any valid license” in the order in W.P. No.22155 of 2009, has paved way for a misleading
inspiration that a mere allegation from the side of IMA is sufficient to prosecute a medical
practitioner.
k) Because the High Court by incorporating the Sentence “The- Petitioners herein may also furnish
the name sofa such persons who, according the them, are prescribing allopathic medicine,
administering allopathic treatment and using the prefix Doctor (Dr.) before their names in
prescriptions an District Medial Officer cpmcerned “ in the order in W.P. No. 30259 of 2009, has
paved way for a misleading interpretation that a mere allegation from the side of IMA is
sufficient to prosecute a medical practitioner.
l) Because I W.P No. 22115 of 2009, though the Humble High Court it has proceeded to hold that
the Court cannot issue general directing to the Respondents to take action against all medical
practitioners, it has, however, taken a contrary view and ordered prosecute ion of medical
practitioners.
m) Because the members of the Petitioner Association are being harassed by the state authorities
by way of arrests and they are being prevented from carrying on their profession as a result of
the impugned orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF.

Pursuant to the impugned order more than 200 Medical practitioners including the practitioners
qualified and registered in various system of medicines have been arrested even without any enquiry
5

and hundreds and hundreds of medical practitioners are chased out form their place of residence and
practice.

Pursuant to the impugned order the people living in the remote rural areas are pitifully left with the only
option of self medication.

The impugned order and the consequent complaints given by IMA has left a false imp ressionamong the
public that expect the members of the IMA , all other medical practitioners , irrespective of their we u
calcification or registration, are quacks and had so far been cheating the public. unless the impugn order
is shade pending disposal of the main SLP, the Petitioner- Association as well as the people living in
remote rural areas will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

The petitioner has a fair chance of succeeding this Special Leave Petition. Therefore, it is just and
necessary that the impugned order be stayed pending deposal o f this case. Moreover, the balance of
convenience lies in favor of the petitioners. In these circumstances it is respectfully submitted that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an interim order granting the stay of the impugned
judgment till the disposal of the present Special Leave Petitions in the Interest of Justice.

7. PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Cory may most graciously be pleased
to:

(a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010
passed in Wirt Petition No.22115 of 2009 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
(b) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2010
passed in Writ Petition No.30259 of 2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
(c) Pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hob’le Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may most graciously pleased to

a) Stay the operation of the impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 passed in Writ
Petition No.22115 of 2009 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras pending disposal of this Special Leave
Petition.

b) stay the operation fo the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2010 passed in Writ
Petition No.30259 of 2008 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras pending disposal of this Special Leave
Petition.
c) Pass such other of orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance
of the case.
6

DRAWN AND FILED BY

P. SOMA SUNDARAM

SETTLED BY:

SHRI. L. NAGESWARA RAO.

SENIOR ADVOCATE

Drawn on : 24.07.2010
Filed on : 26.07.2010
7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1.A. No. --------------- of 2010

In
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.________ OF 2010

(Ariston out of the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 passed in writ Petition
No.22115of 2009, and impugned judgment and final order dated 23.02.2010 passed in Writ Petition
No.30259 of 2008 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras)

IN THE MATTER OF:

The Private Medical practitioners associating of
Indian, Tamil Nadu Branch ……………. Petitioner

VERUS
The Chairman, legal Advisory committee, Respondents

APPLICATIN FOR FILING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS

AND URGING ADDITIONAL GROUDNS
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and his Companion Justice of the Supreme Court of
India.
The humble petition of the petitioners
above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

(A) That this Special Leave Petitioner under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indian arises
out of the impugned Final Judgment and order Dated 05.01.2010 passed in Writ Petition
No.22115 of 2009 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras whereby the Wirt Petition was
disposed of with a direction to the R despondent No-1 to furnish to the government the
names of those who, according to its opinion, are allegedly practicing medicine without
any valid license and with a consequent direction to the government to take immediate
action against such person son receipt of the said information.
(B) Also, this Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arises out
of the impugned final Judgment and Or deer dated 23.2.2010 passed in Writ petition
No.30259 of 2008 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras whereby the Writ Petition was
disposed of with a direction that the Respondent No-1 are prescribing allopathic
medicine, administering allopathic treatment and using the prefix Doctor (Dr.) before t
heir names n prescription and advertisements, to the superintendent of Police as well as
the District Medical Officer concerned so as to take action against them.
8

2) The accompanying Special Leave Petition may be treated as part and parcel of this application
and for the sake of brevity the same may not be repeated herein.

3) The Petitioner Association was not a party before the Hon’ble High Court and thus the
documents mentioned in this application were not brought to the notice to the court below as
well as the grounds arising as a consequence of the said documents.

4) On 27-12-1962, the Petitioner Association was established and registered under The Societies
Registration Act, 1860, vide no. S 2179 of 1962-1963. The head Office of the Association is
situate at No.6600, Bahadurgarh Road, New Delhi. A copy of the said Registration Certificate is
file dandy annexed herewith as Annexure P-1.

5) On 16.06.1964, Section 15 of Medical Council of India of India act was renumbered as Sub-
Section (1) by Act 24 of 1964 and section 15(2) was inserted as follows:

1. Save as provided in section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled
on a state Medical Register:

(a) Shall hold office physician or surgeon or any other office by whatever designating
called in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority.

(b) Shall practice medicine in any State;

(c) Shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other
certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical
practitioner.

(d)Shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expect
under section45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 on any matter relating to medicine.

3. Any person who acts in contravention of nay provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year or with free, which may extend to
one year or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees. Or with body.

That therefore by virtue of the amendment in Section 15 restraint was put upon the
unregistered doctors to practice Medicine even though althea non-institutional Medical
Practitioners were recognized/ registered under the provisions of the Indian Medical Act, 1916.
9

That vide the said provision thousands of practitioner who were practicing in various part of the
country were rendered jobless and a penal provision was also imposed on them. That the
petitioner Association therefore decided to approach the Government for recognition and
registrar tin of the Members of the Association so that the members are exempt from the penal
provisions of various acts and the rules, framed there under from time to time and to protect
and also to safeguard the interest of the members against the provisions of the Drugs Act,
Pharmacy Act, Excise Act etc.

That at that times the members. Of the Association exceeded 2.5 lakhs in whole country and
about 2000 in that State of Tamil Nadu and they were providing medical care to hundreds of
people for a considerable period of time. These members had acquired knowledge doctor and
hospitals. The members of the Petitioner mostly rendered services to poor village people where
there is scarcity of qualification medical practitioners.

That the restraint was enforce in view of the interference of the Medical Council of Indian and
the Indian Medical Association, which are the Associations of institutionally qualified medical
practitieorns as these Association have all. Throughout been opposing the demand for
registration of non-institutionally qualified medical practitioners.

That immediately after the amendment in Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1966
the Petitioner made representations before the Union Government and prayed for the
registration of members of theasociatin and it is was also prayed that until a final decision be
taken in this regard, the penal provision s incorporated by virtue of the amendment in Section
15 of the Act be kept in abeyance.

6) On 07.08.1965, the government of Tamil and, published its proposal in the official gazette to
regularize the practice of the non-institutional qualified medical practitioners. However us
bsequently the state government did not take any step towards such proposal particularly
with regard to the modern allopathic system of medicine. A copy of the said gazette
publication dated 7-8-1965 is annexed as Annexure p-2
7) On 5.5.1966, the Union Government vides Letter. No.f.32/9/64-MPT dated 5.5.1966
informed all the government that the matter of registration of non-institutionally qualified
medial practitieorns was under consideration by the Government of India. It was also
indicated that the State Government may make legislation in order to confinethe non-
institutionally qualified medical practitioners within their own state. It was considered not
only desirable but also necessary to enlist the existing non – institutionally qualified medical
practitierns under specified condition and then to adopt a strict attitude towards those who
are found to be carrying on practice in medicine without getting either Registration or
enlistment. it was also indicated that a Sub-committee awes also set up go into details,
10

including restirciaton to be prescribed, minimum age limit and minimum education

qualification to be laid down for enlistment of the existing non-institutionally qualified
medical practitioners and from the Examinations required to be passed by those who have
been in practice for les then ten years but not less than 5 years.
All the state government were also directed to consider issuing of instruction to keep
enforcement of the penal provisions incorporated by way of amendment in the Indian
Medical council Act, 1956 until a final decision was taken in the is regard. A copy of the
letter dated 5.5.1966 issued by the Union Government is filed annexed herewith as
Annexure p-3

8) . On 24-11-1972, the Union Government vide its letter dated 24 th November 1972 indicated
that some States were in favor of a policy of regularizing the practice being carried out by
these Non- institutionally qualified medical practitieorns while other were opposing it and
also any type of recognition to the non-institutionally qualified medical practitioners was
strongly opposed by the Indian Council as well as by the Indian Medical Association on he
ground that it would only encourage quackery and therefore it was difficult to adopt a
uniform policy.

It was also suggested that registration of those who have been practicing modern medicine for
period of not less than ten years immediately before an appointed date may be allowed an they
may be allowed to continue practicing modern medicine however, not be entitled to practice
surgery obstetrics in any form and prescribe any medicine in Schedules G, H and L of Drugs and
cosmetics Rules, 1945. It was also informed that the Kerala Government in their proposed
Medical Practitioner Bill has included suitable provision for registering practice by such non-
institutionally qualified medical practitioners. A true copy of the letter dated 24 th November
1972 issued by the Union Government is filed and annexed here with as Annexure-p-4

That it was requested to consider the question after taking all aspects into consideration the
position of non-institutionally qualified medical practitioners and their regularization so that
they can serve the people and at the same time take effective steps to prevent the entry of
fresh unqualified people into these ranks.

The various state Government to whom the letter was addressed were requested to take steps
o the guidelines issued by the Union Government.
9) On 12.12.1974, the Fifth Lok Sabha Committee on Petitions by its twentieth report made
recommendations that the unqualified medical practitioners should be regularized o the
lines of the Maharashtra medical Practitioners Act 1961. The Said report dated 21.12.1974
is filed and annexed as annexure p-5.
11

10) On 24-2-1975, the Rajya sabha Committee on Petitions by its Forty Fifth Report made
recommendations in the following tars, that the unqualified medical practitioners should be
regularized.

“The committee, accordingly, feels that whatever talent in the field of medicine is
available should be put to the maximum advantage. The committee has thus
come to the conclusion that the practice by unqualified medical practitioners in
modern medicine should be regularized under certain conditions so that they
could continue to serve the people and are not deprived of their only mean of
livelihood. The committee , therefore, recommends that the Government of
Indian Should frame a uniform law under which such of the unqualified medical
practitioners in modern medicine how possess working knowledge in English and
who have been pracitisingfor not less than 10 years on a date to be appointed by
the Government of Indian or the State Government may be enlisted in a separate
medical register of a stet subject to the condition that such practitioners are not
allowed to prescribe drugs enumerated in schedules are not allowed to prescribe
drugs enumerated in Schedules “G”,”H”and ‘L’ of the rules framed in 1945 under
the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. The Committee further recommends that such
of the enlisted medical practitioners who pass a test n medicine to be prescribed
and conducted by state Government concerned may also be allowed to prescribe
the medicines mentioned in Schedules ‘G’,’H’ and ‘L’ of the rules framed in 1945
under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act,1940. The Committee also agrees with the
views of the Government of India that such practitioners should not be entitled to
practitioners should not be entitled to practice surgery, obstetrics or radiation
therapy in any form.”

A copy of the said Report dated 24-2-1975 is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure P-6

11) On 25.04.1975, the Central Association of the Petitioners vide another representation had sought
parity with other system of medicine, which have been granted recognition. It was most respectfully
submitted that in order to meet the shortage of doctors in the country, the unqualified dentists,
practitierns of Homeopathic, Ayurvedic and USANi Systems were recognized Under the Provision of
certain in 1949 and 1954.It was also pointed out that even in England, all unqualified persons
engaged in the practice of modern system of medicine were registered medical practitioners, under
an Act in 1958. That the association therefore prayed that suitable steps may be taken by the
Government for according recognition to non-institutionally qualified medical practitioners of
modern system of medicine.
The Union Government therefore, vide its letter dated 25 th April, 1975 had apprise different State
Government that the committee has recommended that the Central Government may consider the
12

desirability of suggesting to the state Government for initiating legislation on the lines of the
Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 Particularly Section 18 there of which provides as
follows:

“18(1). As soon as may be, after the appointed day, the Registrar shall n accordance with the
provisions of this Act, prepare and maintain thereafter a list of persons not entitled to registration
under section 17 of the Bombay Medical Act, 1912 or any corresponding law for the time being
enforce in any part of the state but who have been practicing any system of medicine (other than
the Homeopathic or the Biochemical system of Medicine).

2. The List shall contain:-

(a) the name of every person who on the day immediately preceding the appointed day, continued
to be included in the list kept under section 18 of the Bombay Medical Practitioners Act, 1938 as in
force in the Bombay area of the state and whose name is not entered in the register under sub-
section (5) of section 17:

(b) the name of every person whose case in not covered by clause (a) but who makes an application
to the Registrar I the form prescribed by rules accompanied by a fee of ten rupees and such
documents as maybe prescribed by rules, within a period of two years from the appointed day, and
he proves to the satisfaction of the committee appointed under sub-section (6) of section. 17

(I)That on 23rd day of November, 1960 he was regularly practiticing any system of Medicine (other
than Homeopathic or the Biochemical sys of medicine) in the Vidarbha region of the Hyderabad area
off the state; or

(II) That on the 4th November, 1951 he was regularly precutting any such system of medicine in the
Bombay area of the state.

The above recommendation of the committee on petitioners was brought to the notice of the
state Government for such actions as are considered necessary. That a true company of the letter
dated 25th April 1975 from the Union Government is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-7.

12) On 15-12-1975, the Union Government issued another circular on 15 th December 1975 reiterating its
view enumerated in its earlier circulars and asking the St age Government to submit a report on the
actions taken in this regard. A true copy of the circular dated 15.12.75 sent by the Union
Government to the State Government is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure-p-8.
In the meantime the central Office of the Petitioner Association made a representation before the
Lok Sabh and Rajya Sabha and the case of the Petitioner association was discussed in the year 1974
in the presence of representative of various state and other concerned authorities. The Rajya sabha
vide its recommendations dated 25.04.1975 recommended that
13

“Whatever talent in the field of medicine is available should be put to maximum advantage. The
committee has thus come to the conclusion that the practice by unqualified medication partitions in
modern medicine should be regularized under certain conditions so that they could continue to serve
the people and are not deprived of their only means of livelihood. The committee, therefore,
recommends that the Government of Indian should frame a uniform law under which such of the
non-institutionally qualifier law under which such of the non-institutionally qualified medical
partitions in modern medicine who possess working knowledge in English and who have been
practicing for not less than 10 year on a date to be appointed by the Government of India or the
State government may be enlisted in a separate Register of state subject to the condition that such
practitioner are not allowed prescribed drugs enumerated I schedule ‘G’,’H’,and ‘L’ of the Drugs rules
framed in 1945 under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940. The Committee further recommends that
such of the enlisted medical practitioner who pass a test in medicine to be prescribed and conducted
by the state government concerned may also be allowed to prescribe the medicines mentioned in
Schedule ‘G’,’H’ and ‘L’ of the rules framed in 1945 under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940. The
Committee also agrees with the views of the Government of India that such practitioners should not
be entities to practice surgery obstetrics or radiation therapy in any form.”

13) The recommendations of the Lok Sabha and the Committee of Rajya Sabha were forwarded to all
the State Government by the Union Government vide a letter dated 04.03.1978. A copy of the letter
dated 04.03.1978 issued by the Union Government is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p-9.
14) On 15.01.1979, circular dated 15.01.1979 was also issued by Union Government in respect of
enlistment of non-institutionally qualified medical practitioners. The said letter also emphasized the
recommendations of the Committee of the Rajya Sabha. The State Governments were requested to
consider the question of making suitable amendment in the said Act for the enlistment of these
practitioners in the State Medical Register and to keep the penal provision of the Indian Medical
Counsel Act in abeyance as against the unqualified medical practitieorns. A copy of circular dated
15.01.1979 issued by the Union Government is field and annexed here with as Annexure p- 10.
15) In June 1982, further on questions of this association and on various rounds of talks with the heated
of this association, central health ministry had a proposal to add the strength of this association in
computing the medical man power assessment of the country. Pursuant to the said decision, the
Medical educational review committee of the Union Government directed the Association to furnish
the list of its members Accodingly steps were taken. Thus the Union Government has been
extending its recognition over the practice of the Members of this Association. A copy of the letter
dated June 1982 by which the Union Government had directed the Center Association of the
Petitioner to submit the list of its members for medical man power assessment is file and annexed
herewith as Annexure p-11.
16) On 18.12.82, the state government of Uttar Pradesh vides a letter dated 18 th December 1982,
informed the U.P. breach of the Petitioner Association that the matter of enlistment of Non-
institutionally qualified medical practitioners was in active consideration by the State Government. A
translated English copy of the letter dated 18 th December 1982 by the State Government of U.P. is
filed and annexed here with as Annexure p-12.
14

17) On 19.6.84, the state government of U.P. communicated o the U.P. breach of the Petitioner
Association to submit district wise list of the members of the U.P. Brach so that a final decision can
be taken. That true English copy of the letter --- dated 19.06.1984 by the Government of U.P. is being
annexed herewith as Annexure p9. Subsequently, the state government of U.P. had also collected
the list of the members of the U.P. branch to stop enrolling new members. That a true English copy
of the letter dated 19.6.84 by the state Government of U.P. is being annexed herewith as Annexure
p- 13.
18) Pm 8-7-1986 , the Government of India, the Ministry of Health and family Welfare sent a circular to
all the state Governments and the Union Territories directing regularization unqualified medical
practitioners on the lines of its earlier recommendations and also to collect the relevant data in the
preformed annexed therewith. A copy of the said circular dated 8-7-1986 issued by the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p- 14.
19) In 1989, in Andhra Pradesh another association of none institutionally qualified medical
practitioners filed a petitioner on the basis of the recommendation made by the Government of
Indian, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in their letter dated 15.07.1986 to all the Health
Secretaries of the State Governments. That the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh
at Hyderabad directed State Government to consider the case of the Petitioner associating for the
implementation to the registration of the non-institutionally qualified medical partitions within six
month and also stayed the penal provision. A copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p-15
20) on 1.10.1990, the state government of U.P vide this letter dated 1.10.1990 requested the State
Governments of Maharashtra, Rajasthan , Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Kerala to inform them about
the policy decision in these State with regard to the registration of unqualified medical practitioner.
21) In 1992, since various representations of the U.P branch of Petitioner had not been considered by
the U.P. Government, the U.P. of the Petitioner filed Civil Misc. Petition No.2784 OF 1992 in the
Hon’ble High Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to take a
suitable decision on the representation made by the U.P. branch from time to time regarding
enlistment of unqualified medical practitioners, to practice allopathic system of Medicine.
22) On 01.021993, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Luckonw Bench was pleased to stay the penal
provisions contained in Section 15(2) of the MCI Act as against the U.P. branch of the petitioner
Association.
23) On 24.10.2001, after various rounds of discussing with the government of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner
association submitted a letter requesting the State Government of Tamil Nadu to regularize the
practice of the member of the petitioner association. A copy of the letter dated 24.10.2001 sent by
the petitioner is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p-16
24) On 18.12.2001, the Petitioner gave a reminder to the State Government of Tamil Nadu to regularize
the practice of the members of the petitioner association. A copy of the said letter dated 18.12.2001
sent by the Petitioner is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p-17
25) On 28.5.2002, the Petitioner gave a second reminder to the State Government of Tamil Nadu to
regularize the practice of the member of the petitioner association, A copy of the said letter dated
28.5.2002 sent by the Petitioner is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p-18.
15

26) On 22.12.2003 the Petitioner again gave a memorandum to the State Government of Tamil Nadu to
regularize the practice of the members of the petitioner association. A copy of the said

Letter dated 22-12-2003 sent by the Petitioner is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p-19.

27) On 19-5-2004, the Central Council of Indian Medicine issued a notification wherein, inter alia, it had
declared that the institutionally qualified practitioners of Ayurvedic , Siddha, USANi Tibb are eligible to
practice respective system with modern Scientific medicine including surgery and Gynecology obstetrics,
Anesthesiology, ENT, ophalomogy etc., based on the training and teaching. A copy of the said notification
issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine dated 19-5-2004 is filed and annexed herewith as
Annexure p-20.

28) on 04-05-2005, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dismissed the Writ Petition
No.27484/1992, filed by the U.P. branch of the Petitioner Association for default, Against the said order
the U.P. branch of the Petitioner Association has filed as SLP [Civil] No. 9999/2006 before this Hon’ble
court and the same is pending for suitable order.

29) On 16-3-2006, the Petitioner again gave a memorandum to the State Government of Tamil Nadu to
regularize the practice of the members of the petitioner association. A copy of the said letter dated 16-3-
2006 sent by the Petitioner is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p-21.

30) On 5-4-2006, the Central office of the Petitioner Association filed a Writ petition in W.P. No.9691of
2006 in the High Court of Madras seeking to issue appropriate writ or direction against the respondents
there to refrain from enforcing the penal provision of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and the Drugs
and Cosmic 1940 against the members of the Petitioner Association. A copy of the affidavit of the said
Writ Petition No.9691 of 2006 dated 5-4-2006 filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras is filed and
annexed herewith as Annexure p-22.

31) On 6-4-2006, in the above said Wirt Petition No.9691 of 2006, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was
pleased to grant interiminjuction restraining the respondents therein from enforcing the penal
provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 against the
members of the Petitioner Association. A Copy of the said order dated 6-4-2006 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 9691 of 2006 is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure p-23.

32) Subsequently, the writ Petition in W.P. No. 9691 of 2006 was referred to the Division Bench of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras to be heard along with a similar petition in W.P. No.8914 of 2006.

33) On3-06-2010, The Medical man Power ratio of Tamil Nadu is 1:1,70000., according to the Tamil Nadu
government’s own estimate as submitted by the Learned Additional Advocate general before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in a case pertaining to Post Graduate Doctor’s service conditions. A copy
of the article giving the said statistics published in the Chennai Edition of Deccan Chronicle newspaper
dated 23rd June 2010 is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure P-24
16

34) On 23.06.2010, the Petitioner herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 13146 of 2010, before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras to direct the respondents therein to regularize the practice of the
Petitioners members. A copy of the affidavit filed in the writ petition is annexed as Annexure p-25.

35) It is also submitted that the Bombay Medical Act 1912, the Bihar and Orissa Medical Act, 1916, the
Punjab Medical registration Act, 1916 the Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952 and the Maharashtra Medical
Council Act, 1956 are various state legislations which regulate, maintenance of registers of medical
practitioners and the entitlement to practice allopathic medicine and also provides for registration/
enlistment of non-institutionally qualified medical practitioners.

36) PRAYER:
It is , therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Curt may most graciously be pleased
to:

a) Permit the petitioner to file the additional documents being Annexure p-1 to p-25
b) Permit the petitioner to urge additional ground arising as a consequence of he said additional
documents which were not urged in the Hon’ble Court below in view of the Petitioner not
having been a party in the High Court
c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case

DRAWN AND FILED BY

P. SOMA SUNDARAM
Advocate for the Petitioner

SETTLED BY:

SHRI. L. NAGESWARA RAO.

SENIOR ADVOCATE.

Drawn on : 24.07.2010
Filed on : 26.07.2010

MADRAS GAZETEE
17

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

There are now in force in the state of Madras two enactments providing for the registration of medical
practitioners, namely the Madras medical Registration Act 1914 (Madras Medical Registration Act 1914
(Madras Act IV of 1914) and the Madras Registration of Practitioner of Integrated Medicine Act 1956
(Madras Act XXVII of 1956 ) the madras Act provides for the establishment of a Medical Council and for
the registration of medical practitioners of modern medicine, who possess recognized qualifications on
the other hand, the 1956 Madras Act provides for the establishment of the Board of Integrated
Medicine, Madras and also for the registration of Practitioners of integrated medicine who hold
recognized qualification . Besides the practitioners of modern medicine and the practitioners of
integrated medicine there are a large number of practitioners of homoeopathic medicine in the state.
The Government have decided to recognize the homoeopathic system medicine and to regulate the
practice in that system of medicine by undertaking suitable legislation. It is proposed to establish a
council of Homoeopathic Medicine as in the case of modern medicine and provide for the registration of
practitioner

No. 5679/Ranchi-7-1605/72

From:
Shri Kripal Singh Dharola,
Deputy Secretary,
Government of U.P.

To
Secretary,
The Private Medical Practitioners
Association of India,
U.P. Branch ,
Rani Ganj, Lucknow.

Medical Section – 7 Lucknow dated 18.12.1982

Subject: Preparation of list of Unqualified Medical Practitioners on the basis of their experience.

Sir
By addressing to Medical Secretary on the aforesaid subject, I have been directed to say in
reference to your letter No.1407/CA/82 dated 6th October, 1982 that the case of preparation of list of
unqualified medical practitioner is pending for consideration before State Government some time would
be taken in taking decision over it.
Yours faithfully,
18

Sd/- Mirinal singh Dharola,

Deputy Secretary

Government of U.P

Medical Section -7

No.2268(Five 7 .. 1005/72)
Lucknow dated 19th June, 1984

Office Memo
In reference to the letter NO.112S/U.P.V/84v dated 11 th June, 1984 on the subject of preparation of list
under certain conditions and restrictions to the members of Private Medical Practitioners Association of
India, following under signed has been directed to say to Dr. Abhey Choudhary President Private Medical
Practitioners Association of India , D.P. Brach that as suggestion have been received from Government of
India from time to time the case for preparing the list of the members of Associating under the condition
is pending before the Government for consideration . It is necessary prior to taking final decision in this
case that district wise list of members of Association their educational qualifications and experience etc.
along with details should be made available to the Government . Kindly make the required list available
to the Government immediately in this regard, so that final decision, could be taken in this case.

Sd/-
Raghuvansh R. Bhatnager
Deputy Secretary.

To
Dr. Ajay Choudhary,
President Pvt. Medical Practitioners Association of India,
Lucknow.
19

No. v/11016/382-ME(P)
Government of India
Ministry of Health & family Welfare
Department of Health

New Delhi, the 8th July, 1986

To
The Health Secretary,
All State Govts./U.Ts.
Sir
I am directed to say that the question of registration of unqualified medical practitioners had
been under consideration for a very considerable period. At various points of time, in the past, it has
been considered not only desirable but also necessary to enlist the existing unqualified medical
practitioners , under specified conditions, and to adopt a strict attitude towards those who are found to
be carrying on practice in modern medicine without procuring registration / enlistment.

2. It is common knowledge that many of the unqualified medical practitioners who have been in
profession for long periods, from the early 50s have been rending medical care to the community,
particularly in the rural areas where the availability of qualified medical practitioners, woefully
inadequate in the past, has progressively been improving . The thinking the Central Government after
taking into view all aspects of the matter has been that the functioning of unqualified Medical
Practitioners should be regularized and strictly regulated so that they are able to continue to serve the
people while, at the time urgent and effective steps should be taken to prevent the entry of fresh
unqualified practitioners into the ranks of the existing stock. Accordingly, the State Governments were
advised to introduce suitable legislation for amending the State Medical Acts so as to provide that those
who have been practicing modern medicine for a period of not less than 10 yeas, immediately before
the appointed ate, might be allowed to continue practice in modern medicine. It was further stipulated
that such person should, however, not be entitled to practice surgery, obstetrics or radiation therapy in
my form and to prescribed any medicine included in scheduled G,H & L of the Drugs and cosmetic Rules,
1945 and other dangerous drugs. It was, further advised that as this class practitioners would constitute
a distance category, it would be desirable to keep their records separately form those who are qualified
medical practitioners.

3. This Ministry has reviewed the progress achieved in the matter. Its observed that despite the lapse of
so many years and repeated remainders from this ministry, no tangible action appears to have been
20

taken by most of the State Government in furtherance with the approach recommended by the
Government of India. Also no restrictions appears to have been imposed by the State Governments to
ensure against the entry of Fresh unqualified persons into the ranks of registrable Stock.

4. In order to assess the situation further as prevailing in the various States/ Union Territories it has been
proposed to collect the relevant data from the various States/Union Territories in the prescribed
preformed appended herewith. It is requested that the preformed duly filled in may kindly be returned
to this ministry urgenly and in any case by the 31 st July, 1986 at the latest together with their remarks, if
any.
Yours Faithfully,
Sd/-
(CHANDER BHAN)
Under Secretary
The Commissioner and Secretary to Government,
Health Department Govt of Tamil Naud,
St. George Forte, Chennai-600 009.
Dear Sir,
This is in pursuance of our discussions held on 18.09.2001 regarding the regularization
(Registration ) of the practice of the Bonfire members of this Association viz,. “THE PRIVATE MEDICAL
PRACTITIONERS’ Association of Indian” (Regd). Tamil Nadu Brach; in the field of Modern System of
Allopathic Medicine in accordance with the Government of India’s Circular No.V/11016/3/82-ME(P) Date
08.07.1986.

Our members are practicing since four decades. The union health ministry have collected the list
of our members in the year 1982 for the purpose of medical man power ratio and submitted the same to
W.H.O.
I herewith, place the following documents before your good self for taking necessary action in this
regard.
DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED:-

1. Letter dated 5.04.2001, sent by the Hon’ble Union Health Minister to our Association.
2. G.O.I. Circular No. V/11016/3/82-ME (P) Dt.08.07.1986 of the ministry of health and family welfare,
Department of Health.
3. Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON THE S.L.P (C ). No.8422 of 1995 filed by
our Association( Viz,. THE PRIVATE MEDICAL PRACTIONRS’ ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (REGD.)
4. Judgment dated 30.03.1995 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.16878 of 1993.
5. CONSUMER COURT ORDER dated 07.04.1999 (O.P No. 23/96)
6. Chief judicial Magistrate Court order Dated 25.11.1994 (C.C. No.288/85)

Thanking you ,
Yours
Sincerely

(Dr.G. ARUMUGAM)
General Secretary
21

CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE

INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI NEW

DELHI 110058
Notification

28-5/2004-Ay (M/M) Dated: 19.05.2004

In exercise of the power conferred by 2(1) (e) of the Indian Medicine Central council Act1970 hereby
Central Council of Indian Medicine Notify that :-
The Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970 is very clear with regard to definition o f Indian systems of
Medicine of which read as follows:-
Indian Medicine means the system of Indian Medicine commonly known as ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha or
Unani Tibb whether supplemented or bot by such Modern advances as the Central Council may declare
by notification from time to time.
For the word Modern advances the Council at its meeting held on 23 rd March 2003 ha passed the
resolution and defined Indian Medicine as under:-
This meeting of the Central Council hereby unanimously resolved that in clause (a) of Sub-Section 2(1) of
the IMCC Act, 1970, the word modern Advances be ___ as advances made in the various branches of
Modern Scientific Medicine in all its benches of internal medicine, surgery. Gynecology and obstetrics
anesthesiology, diagnostic procedures and other technological innovation made from time to time and
declare that the courses and curriculum conducted and recognized by the Central Council of Indian
Medicine are supplemented with such modern advances.

Further. Clarified that the right of practitioner of Indian Systems of Medicine are protected under Indian
Medicine Central Council Act. 1970 under section 173(b) which sates as under

Meaning contained in Sub-Section (2) shall affect privileges (including the right to practice any system of
medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian Medicine for
the time being in force in any state on a practitioners of Indian Medicine enrolled on a State registered of
Indian Medicine.
The Government of Indian from time and again have asked the council to improve the syllabus by
including subjects with regard to National Programmers like National Malaria eradication programmed
leprosy Family welfare Programmed RCII Programmed humanization Programmed, Aids, Cancer etc. and
according the Council has strengthened the syllabus of all the system of medicine.
The institutions qualified practicing of Ayurveda, siddha, unani Tibb are eligible to practice respective
systems with modern Scientific medicine including surgery and Gynecology obstetrics. Anesthesiology.
ENT. Ophthalmology etc. based on the training and teaching .

DR. SHARMA
22

Secretary
1. All the members of CCIM
2. Health Secretary of all State Government :
3. Doctors of ISM of all States.
4. Registrars of all States Boards/ Councils.