Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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