CASE TITLE:
Baharul Islam & Ors. V. The Indian Medical Association & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
24 January 2023
JUDGE(S):
Justice Nagarathna
Justice B R Gavai
SUBJECT
The learned Supreme Court struck down the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 on the ground that the state legislature did not have the competence to legislate on the said matter as the same falls exclusively within the domain of parliament’s legislative power.
IMPORTANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
Seventh Schedule ( The Constitution of India)
Entry 25 ( List III)- Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.
Entry 66 (List I)- Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- In 2004, the Assam Legislature enacted the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004. It provided for establishment of a regulatory authority that would possess the power to prescribe the minimum standards of the course and other particulars as well like duration, curriculum.
- The Indian Medical Association, Assam State branch filed a writ petition assailing the validity of the said act.
- While the writ petition was pending, pursuant to the impugned legislation, the appellants were admitted in the First year of the three-year Diploma Course in Medicine and Rural Health Care in the Medical Institute, Jorhat.
- The Gauhati High Court and declared the act to be unconstitutional and ultra vires.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned act is not in violation to the Indian Medical Council Act enacted by the Parliament.
- It was also submitted that only if the impact of the State Law is so heavy or devastating so as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the Central field of legislation, can it be struck down but not otherwise.
- Learned senior counsel contended that in the present case, there is no question of the Assam Act, making it impossible or difficult for the Parliament to exercise its power for coordination and determination of standards in medical institutions.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Assam Act is repugnant to the Indian Medical Association , 1956.
- The learned counsel also submitted that Central Act i.e Indian Medical Association Act, 1956 in pith and substance, falls under Entry 66 of List I and occupies the entire field insofar as establishment of new medical colleges is concerned which deals with coordination and determination of standards, inter alia, in medical education.
- Thus State Legislature was incompetent to legislate on the same field.
LEGAL ISSUE
Whether the impugned act was beyond the legislative competence of the Assam State Legislature?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- While adjudicating upon the matter, the Court observed several effects of the impugned act. The Court noted that Act intended to not only introduce a new force in the field of medical education but also to regulate the profession of successful candidates. It also sought to provide the regulatory authority set up under it with such powers that are all covered within the legislative field of coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. The same is the head of Entry 66 of Union List.
- The Court observed that Entry 66 of List I has been provided with the object of maintaining uniform standards in research, higher education and technical education.
- It further observed that although Entry 25 of the Concurrent List (List III) confers the power to legislate on the subject of education to both the Union and State Legislature, the same is made subject to any entry in the first list.
- Thus, the Court noted that where there is any direct conflict between a Union law and. A State law over a matter of coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education, such as in medical education concerning modern medicine, the State law can not be held to be valid as the State Legislature does not possess the requisite legislative competence.
CONCLUSION
The light of the above observations made, the learned Court concluded that the Assam Act was rightly declared null and void by the Gauhati High Court. The impugned act was ruled to be repugnant to the Indian Medical Association Act, a central law in the same field and was thus declared unconstitutional.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
