MUKHTIAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases raise questions of general importance and practical significance - questions relating not only to the right to practise medical profession but also to the right to life which includes health and well-being of a person. The controversy in these cases was triggered off by the issuance of declarations by the State Governments under Clause (iii) of Rule 2 (ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short 'the Drugs Rules') which defines "Registered Medical Practitioner". Under such declarations, notified Vaids/Hakims claim right to prescribe Allopathic drugs covered by the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Drugs Act'). Furthermore, Vaids/Hakims who have obtained degrees in integrated courses claim right to practise allopathic system of medicine.

(2.) In exercise of the power under Clause (iii) of Rule 2(ee), the State of Punjab issued Notification No. 9874-THBTT-67/34526 dated 29th October, 1967 declaring all the Vaids/Hakims who had been registered under the East Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1949 and the Pepsu Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 2008 BK and the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963 as persons practising Modern System of Medicine for purposes of the Drugs Act. One Dr. Sarwan Singh Dardi who was a medical practitioner, registered with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Punjab, and who was practising modern system of medicines, was served with an order of the District Drugs Inspector, Hoshiarpur, prohibiting him from keeping in his possession any allopathic drug for administration to patients and further issuing general direction to the chemists not to issue allopathic drugs to any patient on the prescription of the said doctor. That action of the Inspector was questioned by Dr. Dardi in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C. W. P. No. 2204 of 1986. He claimed that he was covered by the said notification and was entitled to prescribe allopathic medicine to his patients and store such drugs for their treatment (hereinafter referred to as 'Dardi's case). A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by judgment dated September 17, 1986, held that the said notification was ultra vires the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of Clause (ee) of Rule 2 of the Drugs Rules and also contrary to the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and accordingly dismissed his writ petition.

(3.) Writ petitions filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for a mandamus restraining the authorities concerned from interfering with their right to prescribe medicines falling under the Drugs Act on the strength of such notifications were also dismissed by the High Court and the aggrieved persons have filed appeals before us by special leave.