Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court

Ayurvedic doctors not qualified to perform surgeries or post-mortems: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 27 April 2023, Supreme Court of India, in STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC. Vs DR. P. A. BHATT & ORS. ETC. , has held that Ayurvedic doctors are not entitled to the same pay as allopathic doctors, as they do not perform the same duties. The decision was made in a series of civil appeals filed by the State of Gujarat against an order of the High Court of Gujarat, which had directed the state government to pay Ayurvedic doctors on par with allopathic doctors.

The bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal noted that while alternative systems of medicine may have their place in history, practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine do not perform complicated surgical operations, nor are they qualified to perform post-mortems. They also pointed out that during out-patient days in general hospitals, MBBS doctors attend to hundreds of patients, which is not the case with Ayurvedic doctors.

The court further referred to a comparative chart submitted by the State of Gujarat, which claimed that IV injections and ART injections cannot be administered by Ayurvedic doctors. The bench held that while Ayurvedic doctors are important and alternative systems of medicine need to be promoted, they do not perform equal work as allopathic doctors and are therefore not entitled to equal pay.

The court allowed all the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The contempt petitions were also dismissed along with all interlocutory applications including the impleadment application(s). No costs were awarded.

The court further held that benefits derived by the respondents by virtue of the interim order passed by the court on 08.09.2014 were liable to be recovered from the respondents. The court justified this by stating that a benefit derived by an individual by virtue of an interim order passed by a court cannot be allowed to be retained if the ultimate outcome of the case went against such a person.

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC. Vs DR. P. A. BHATT & ORS. ETC.

Latest Legal News