Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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