The Indian Siddha Medical Association v. Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council

Prayer in W.P. No.403/1999 : Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration,declaring that the Tamil Nadu Siddha System of Medicine (Development andRegistration of Practitioners) Act, 1997 (Act 34 of 1997) and theconsequential G.O. No.70 dated 12.2.1998 (Department of Health andFamily Welfare, Tamilnadu) passed in pursuance of the enactment of theabovesaid impugned Act by the 3rd respondent as null and void, ultraviresand unconstitutional, insofar as petitioner is concerned.Prayer in W.P. No.5239 /1999 : Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration,declaring that the Tamil Nadu Siddha System of Medicine (Development andRegistration of Practitioners) Act, 1997 (Act 34 of 1997) and theconsequential G.O. No.70 dated 12.2.1998 (Department of Health andFamily Welfare, Tamilnadu) passed in pursuance of the enactment of theabovesaid impugned Act by the 2nd respondent as null and void insofar aspetitione-association are concerned.For Petitioner : Mr. R. Muralidharan For Respondents : Mr. P. Rajagopal For R2 (W.P. Nos.402 & 403 of 1999) For R6 (W.P. No.5239 of 1999) Mr. A. Arumugam, Spl. Govt. Pleader For R3 (W.P. Nos.402&403 of 1999) For R2 (W.P. No.5239/1999)O R D E RThe first two writ petitions were admitted on 12.1.1999 and thethird writ petition was admitted on 31.3.1999. The Miscellaneousapplication filed by the petitioners for grant of interim stay on theimpugned legislation and the stay of the impugned G.O.70 Department ofHealth and Family Welfare dated 12.2.1978 was dismissed by a reasonedorder dated 20.9.2000. In respect of the earlier two miscellaneouspetitions, the prayer for interim relief was dismissed on 27.12.2002.In the subsequent application for interim stay filed by them, onlynotice was ordered. Pursuant to the notice, the second and fifthrespondents have filed counter affidavits. In view of the inter-connectivity among the three writ petitions, they were heard togetherand common order is being passed. 2. The Tamil Nadu Legislature passed an Act viz. The Tamil NaduSiddha System of Medicine (Development and Registration ofPractitioners) Act, 1997 (For short "TN Siddha Act"). The said Actprovides for establishment of Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council (Forshort "State Council"). Under Section 2(14), the Act provides forprescription of a Schedule. Section 34 of the TN Siddha Act reads asfollows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ''The Government may, if they are satisfied on thereport of the Council or otherwise that the course ofstudy and examination prescribed by any University oran institution or authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 27 conferring, granting orissuing any degree, diploma, licence, certificate orany other like award---(i) included in the Schedule are not such as tosecure the possession by persons obtaining suchdegree, diploma, licence, certificate or any otherlike award of the requisite knowledge and skill forthe efficient practise of Siddha medicine, or(2) not included in the Schedule are such as tosecure the possession by the persons aforesaid ofsuch knowledge and skillby notification direct that such degree,diploma, licence, certificate or any other like award---(a) in a case falling under clause (1), beremoved from the Schedule, or(b) in a case falling under clause (2), beincluded in the Schedule,and upon the issue of such notification, the Scheduleshall be deemed to have been amended accordingly." 3. The schedule prescribed under Section 34 read with Section 214the names of the University, respective Boards of Examinations as wellas the recognized medical qualifications. The present case is concernedwith only Part II, Part III and Part IV, which may be reproduced asunder:-123PART II2. Government Collegeof Indian/Indigenous/Integrated Medicine,Chennai.Graduate of the College ofIndian/Indigenous/IntegratedMedicine.G.O.I.M. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 123PART III(a) University ofMadras(b) Madurai-KamarajUniversity, Madurai -do-- -do--(c) Tamil NaduDr.M.G.R. MedicalUniversity, ChennaiBachelor of Indian Medicine(Siddha)Bachelor of Indian Medicine(Siddha)Doctor of Medicine (Siddha)Bachelor of Siddha Medicine andSurgeryBachelor of Siddha Medicine andSurgeryB.I.M.B.I.M.M.D.(Siddha)B.S.M.& S.B.S.M.& S.PART IV4. Central Board ofIndigenous Medicine,Chennai or Tamil NaduBoard of IndianMedicine.Certificate granted totraditionally trained or hereditarypractitioners of Indian Medicineand Enlisted Siddha MedicalPractitionersR.S.M.P.E.S.M.P.4. The two writ petitioner-Association as well as one Siddha MedicalPractitioner are challenging the power of the State enacting legislationof this sort. According to them, there is already a central legislationi.e.) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Central Act 48 of 1970)is fully occupying the field. If the State has power to prescribequalification for grant of educational degrees and diplomas to berecognised by the Universities and Medical Council, then it will whittledown the standard of education and also usurp the power of the CentralCouncil from dealing with such issues.5. A reference is also made to the statement of objects and reasonsfound in TN Siddha Act. It reads as follows:-''At present there is no law to provide for the developmentof the Siddha System of medicine and for the regulation ofthe practitioners of the Siddha Medicine in the State ofTamil Nadu. It has been considered necessary to developthe Siddha System of Medicine and to register thepractitioners of Siddha Medicine in the State. It has alsobeen considered necessary to establish a Council called theTamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council for the purpose."6. It was stated by them that the objects and reasons found in theenactment is purely a misstatement. The Central Act as well as theCentral Council which was enacted in the year 1970 and brought intoforce from 1976 is only intended to achieve the said object and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore, there was neither any necessity for enacting statelegislation nor there is any power vested on the state legislature tobring such an enactment. It is necessary to refer to the statement ofobjects and reasons which enable the Centre to make a law on thesubject. The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (the Central Act)provides for constitution of a Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM)and the maintenance of a Central Register of Indian Medicine and formatters connected therewith. This Act was enacted by Parliament and cameinto force on 21-12-1970. Introduction to this Act reads as under:-“To consider problems relating to the Indian systems ofAyurveda, Siddha and Unani medicine and Homoeopathic systemof medicine a number of Committees were appointed by theGovernment of India, which had recommended that a statutoryCentral Council on the lines of the Medical Council of Indiafor modern system of medicine should be established for theproper development of these systems of medicine. In June1966 the Central Council of Health at its 13th meeting,while discussing the policy on Ayurvedic education,recommended the setting up of a Central Council for IndianSystem of Medicine to lay down and regulate standards ofeducation and examinations, qualifications and practice inthese systems. On the basis of the above recommendations theIndian Medicine Central Council Bill was introduced inParliament.”7. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out variousprovisions of the Central Act. The constitution of the Central Councilfound under Section 3 takes into account the interest of each Statesince the Central Council permits 5 members of each State to be in theCouncil. Section 14 deals with recognition of medical qualificationgranted by various medical institutions in India and they are prescribedunder Second Schedule to the Act. Items 93 to 98 deal with the list ofinstitutions operating in Tamil Nadu and also recognised medicalqualifications have been prescribed. With reference to the medicalqualification in Siddha system, serial Nos.97 and 98 deal with therecognised medical qualifications approved by the Central Council andthey are as follows:-1234597University ofMadras, MadrasAyuveda-ShiromaniBachelor of IndianMedicine (Siddha)B.I.M.(From 1930)(From 1965) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1234598Madurai KamarajUniversity, MaduraiBachelor of IndianMedicine (Siddha)Doctor of Medicine(Siddha)Bachelor of SiddhaMedicine & SurgeryB.I.M.M.D.(Siddha)B.S.M. & S.From 1971onwardsFrom 1975onwardsFrom 1982onwards8. It is also submitted that if any new qualification to berecognised on a request made by a University, Board or other medicalinstitutions, which are not included in Second Schedule, must apply tothe Central Government, which, after consulting the Central Council willamend the Second Schedule by adding those qualifications. The power towithdraw recognition of an institution vests with the Central Council.In the same way, the prescription of minimum standards of education inIndian medicine shall vest only with the Central Council. The CentralCouncil maintains a Central Register of list of practitioners.Therefore, it is not open to the State to pass a legislation usurpingthe power of the Central Government. 9. The State Government unmindful of its limited role had alsoconstituted a State Council by virtue of the impugned order inG.O.Ms.No.70, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.2.1998.The petitioner in W.P. No.402 of 1999 also produced a copy of letterdated 29.12.1998 sent by the Central Council (5th respondent) to theAssociation, enclosing a copy of the letter written to the StateGovernment dated 15.12.1998. 10. The Central Council (5th respondent) has also filed a counteraffidavit. In paragraphs 7 and 14, it is averred as follows:-"7. ..... the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council,the First Respondent herein – formed by the TamilNadu Siddha System of Medicine (Development andRegistration of Practitioners) Act, 1997 – is in noway empowered either to regulate the system of SiddhaMedicine or to issue any certificate of passing theSiddha Degree Course Examination. CCIM formed by theIMCC Act 1970 is the only body that has control andregulation over education of Indian Systems ofMedicine all over the nation. No other body thanCCIM can have any powers in this regard.14 .... I generally submit that many of theprovisions contained in this State Act i.e. Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu Siddha System of Medicine (Development andRegistration of Practitioners) Act, 1997, are quitecontrary to the provisions already made under theCentral Act i.e. the IMCC Act, 1970. Therefore, suchcontrary provisions render the State Act liable to bestruck down."11. On the contrary, the second respondent-State Siddha MedicalCouncil had filed a counter affidavit dated 24.2.2003, refuting thestand of the fifth respondent-Central Council. The following avermentsmade in paragraphs 4 and 5 are extracted below:-"4. ........ The Government of Tamil Nadu haveenacted the Tamilnadu Siddha System of Medicine(Development and Registration of Practitioners) Act,1997. The said Act is constituted not only for theregistration of Siddha Practitioners. It is for thedevelopment of Siddha Practitioners and SiddhaSystems. Provision have also been included in theAct for the following purpose.1) Recommend to Government to opening of newhospitels, dispensaries.2) Prescribe and publish text books for thecourses provided by the Siddha Medical Institutions.3) Evolve norms for standardisation of SiddhaMedicine.4) Make regulations for the manufacture and saleof Siddha Medicine.5) Unearth various siddha Medicine andformulations kept secret by hereditary pactitionersand popularise them.6) Formulate the aims and patterns of researchon scientific lines in Siddha Medicine.7) Undertake any search or research orientedprogrammed.8) Suggest new courses of study and to makeregulations for such courses.5. ........ the Indian Medicine Central CouncilAct has come into force only from 1-10-76. But the Tamilnadu Board of Indian Medicineis registering institutionally qualified and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hereditary Indian Medical Practitioners since 1933.Therefore, the Tamilnadu Board of Indian Medicineclassified the qualification as follows and issuedcertificates.Institutionally qualified person- A ClassNon-institutionally qualified person- B Class and C ClassThe Tamilnadu Siddha Medical Council cannot rejectthe medical registration certificate issued by theTamilnadu Board of Indian Medicine to the hereditarySiddha Medical Practitioners." 12. The leaned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Siddha Councilalso submitted that the Central Act 48 of 1970 itself contemplate theexistence of a State law providing for State Council and a State medicalregister. In this context, a reference is made to Section 2(b) definingthe term ''Board" and Section 2(j) defining the term ''State Register".Both provisions are extracted hereunder:-"(b) "Board" means a Board Council, ExaminingBody or Faculty of Indian Medicine (by whatever namecalled) constituted by the State Government under anylaw for the time being in force regulating the awardof medical qualifications in, and registration ofpractitioners of, Indian medicine.(j) "State Register of Indian Medicine" means aregister or registers maintained under any law (orfor the time being in force in any State regulatingthe registration of practitioners of Indian medicine"(Emphasis Added)13. A reference was made to the constitution of Central Councilprovided under Section 3(1)(a) of the Central Act referring to the StateRegister. Section 3(1)(a) of the Central Act is extracted below:-"3. Constitution of Central Council--(1) The Central Government shall, bynotification in the Official Gazette constitute forthe purposes of this Act a Central Council consistingof the following members, namely:-(a) such number of members not exceeding five asmay be determined by the Central Government inaccordance with the provisions of the First Schedule https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (or each of the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems ofmedicine from each State in which a State Register ofIndian Medicine is maintained to be elected fromamongst themselves by persons enrolled on thatRegister as practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha orUnani, as the case may be;"14. It was also pointed out that section 17 recognizes the right ofpersons whose names are found in the State Register also to hold officeand also to practice Indian Medicine. Section 17 (3) also provides fora saving clause and it reads as follows:-''(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shallaffect, -(a) the right of a practitioner of Indianmedicine enrolled on a State Register of IndianMedicine to practise Indian medicine in any Statemerely on the ground that, on the commencement of thisAct, he does not possess a recognised medicalqualification:(b) the privileges (including the right topractise any system of medicine) conferred by or underany law relating to registration of practitioners ofIndian medicine for the time being in force in anyState on a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled ona State Register of Indian Medicine;(c) the right of a person to practise Indianmedicine in a State in which, on the commencement ofthis Act, a State Register of Indian medicine is notmaintained if, on such commencement, he has beenpractising Indian medicine for not less than fiveyears;(d) ... ... .. (omitted) ."15. It was also stated that the Central Register of Indian Medicineprovided under section 23 must contain the names of all persons who arefor the time being enrolled on any State Register of Indian Medicine andwho possess any of the recognised medical qualification. Under section27, the Central Council is bound to remove the name of a person from theCentral Register if his name is otherwise removed from the StateRegister pursuant to the order conferred by or under any law relating toregistration of practitioners of Indian medicine, which is in force inany State. 16. In the light of the above, it is submitted that there was noconflict between the Central Act and the T.N.Siddha Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. In opposition to the stand taken by the State, the learnedcounsel for the Central Council submitted that merely because the Stateis entitled to maintain a State Register and also to have a StateCouncil for maintaining such Register, it does not give any authorityfor the State Legislature to create a law on a field which is alreadycovered by the Central Law on the subject. Once the Central Law isenacted for the purpose of laying down co-ordination of standards on thefield of Siddha medicine, only that law will prevail over the State law.In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India -vs- State ofKarnataka and others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 131. In that case, theSupreme Court upheld the validity of the power of the Medical Council ofIndia in framing regulations with reference to the admission of studentsincluding the intake of the number of students to be admitted. To thatextent, it was held that the State Law providing for the issues coveredby the Central Law was repugnant to the Central Law and they were heldto be unconstitutional. 18. Following this judgment, a Division Bench of this Court inDharma Medical and Research Charitable Trust -vs- Government of Indiareported in 2006-2-L.W.346 considered the scope of the Indian MedicineCentral Council Act, 1970 vis-a-vis the State enactment, viz., Dr.MGRMedical University Act. In paragraphs 5, 10 and 13, it was held asfollows:-''Para 5. In the instant case, both the State Actand the Central Act have been enacted in exercise ofthe powers conferred by Entry 25 of List III. SinceParliament and State Legislatures are empowered tomake laws on the same subject, the possibility ofrepugnancy between a law made by Parliament and a lawmade by a State Legislature under Entry 25 of List IIIcannot be excluded. Article 254 of the Constitutionmakes a provision for dealing with such a situation.Article 254(1) gives overriding effect to theprovisions of a law made by Parliament, whichParliament is competent to enact or to any provisionof any existing law in respect of one of the mattersenumerated in List II and if a law made by thelegislature of the State is repugnant to theprovisions of the law made by Parliament, the law madeby the legislature of the State is to be treated asvoid to the extent of repugnancy. Under Clause (2),the law made by the legislature of a State withrespect to one of the matters enumerated in List IIIwill prevail over the provisions of an earlier lawmade by Parliament or an existing law with respect tothat matter if the law made by the legislature of thestate has been reserved for consideration by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ President and has received his assent. The proviso toclause (2) curtails the ambit of clause (2) byproviding that Parliament can enact a law with respectto the same matter on which the State legislature hasmade the law and by such law Parliament can add to,amend, vary or repeal the law made by the legislatureof a State.Para 10. It would thus be clear that in enactingSection 13A, Parliament has made a complete andexhaustive provision covering the entire field forestablishing a new medical college and for itscontinuance. No further scope is left for theoperation of the State Legislation in the said fieldwhich is fully covered by the law made by theParliament. As per sub-section (1) of Section 13A readwith Explanation 2, inserted by the Amendment Act 52of 2002, the admission capacity has to be fixed bythe Central Government from time to time for beingadmitted to such course of training. Therefore, theUniversity had clearly erred in denying Sanction tothe petitioner college for the intake of 40 studentswhich has been duly approved by the Central Council.Para 13. The law laid down by the Supreme Courtwith reference to the provisions of the MedicalCouncil Act is squarely applicable to the medicalcolleges governed by the Indian Medicine Council Act,1970....."19. Though the counsel for both sides made reference to the CentralAct, they were unaware of the amendments brought into the Central Act bythe Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Central Act58 of 2003) with effect from 07.11.2003. By the said amendment, sections13A, 13B and 13C together with their sub-sections were introduced. Theyread as under:-“13-A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, newcourse of study, etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained inthis Act or any other law for the time being in force,—(a) no person shall establish a medical college; or(b) no medical college shall—(i) open a new or higher course of study or training, includinga postgraduate course of study or training, which would enable astudent of such course or training to qualify himself for theaward of any recognised medical qualification; or(ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ training including a postgraduate course of study or training,except with the previous permission of the Central Governmentobtained in accordance with the provisions of this section.Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, ‘person’includes any university or a trust, but does not include theCentral Government.Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, ‘admissioncapacity’, in relation to any course of study or training,including postgraduate course of study or training, in a medicalcollege, means the maximum number of students as may be fixed bythe Central Government from time to time for being admitted tosuch course or training.***13-B. Non-recognition of medical qualifications in certaincases.—(1) Where any medical college is established without theprevious permission of the Central Government in accordance withthe provisions of Section 13-A, medical qualification granted toany student of such medical college shall not be deemed to be arecognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act.(2) Where any medical college opens a new or higher course ofstudy or training including a postgraduate course of study ortraining without the previous permission of the CentralGovernment in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A,medical qualification granted to any student of such medicalcollege on the basis of such study or training shall not bedeemed to be a recognised medical qualification for the purposesof this Act.(3) Where any medical college increases its admission capacityin any course of study or training without the previouspermission of the Central Government in accordance with theprovisions of Section 13-A, medical qualification granted to anystudent of such medical college on the basis of the increase inits admission capacity shall not be deemed to be a recognisedmedical qualification for the purposes of this Act.13-C. Time for seeking permission for certain existing medicalcolleges.—(1) If any person has established a medical college orany medical college has opened a new or higher course of studyor training or increased the admission capacity on or before thecommencement of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment)Act, 2003, such person or medical college, as the case may be,shall seek, within a period of three years from the saidcommencement, permission of the Central Government in accordancewith the provisions of Section 13-A.(2) If any person or medical college, as the case may be, failsto seek permission under sub-section (1), the provisions ofSection 13-B shall apply, so far as may be, as if permission of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Central Government under Section 13-A has been refused.”20. A question came up before the Supreme Court with referenceto the validity of Bihar's Development Ayurvedic and UnaniSystems of Medicine Act, 1951 with that of the Central Act. Thecontroversy arose therein was whether the G.A.M.S.Degree givenunder the Bihar State Act stand derecognised or not in operationafter the introduction of the amendment to the Central Act. 21. The Supreme Court vide its decision in State of Bihar andothers -vs- Dr.Sudhir Kumar Singh and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC728 answered such a question. It is necessary to refer to the passagesfound in paragraphs 50, 51, 52 and 56 to 60, which are as follows:- ''Para 50. The provisions of Sections 13-A, 13-Band 13-C of the 1970 Act as introduced by the amendingAct of 2003, if given retrospective operation, themedical qualification acquired from the study in themedical colleges which have been opened prior to thecommencement of the amending Act of 2003 and conferredmedical qualification on the students who studied insuch medical colleges, the degrees so conferred in theabsence of the permission of the Central Governmentwould be non est though there is no fault on the partof the students who have studied in the institutionswhich are recognised and affiliated to the Facultyunder the 1951 Act.Para 51. In our opinion, where the legislaturehas used words in an Act which if generally construed,must lead to palpable injustice and consequencesrevolting to the mind of any reasonable man, the courtwill always endeavour to place on such words areasonable limitation, on the ground that thelegislature could not have intended such consequenceto ensue, unless the express language in the Act orbinding authority prevents such limitation beinginterpolated into the Act. In construing an Act, aconstruction ought not be put that would workinjustice, or even hardship or inconvenience, unlessit is clear that such was the intention of thelegislature. It is also settled that where thelanguage of the legislature admits of twoconstructions and if construction in one way wouldlead to obvious injustice, the courts act upon theview that such a result could not have been intended,unless the intention had been manifested in expresswords. Out of the two interpretations, that languageof the statute should be preferred to thatinterpretation which would frustrate it. It is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cardinal rule governing the interpretation of thestatutes that when the language of the legislatureadmits of two constructions, the court should notadopt the construction which would lead to anabsurdity or obvious injustice. It is equally wellsettled that within two constructions that alternativeis to be chosen which would be consistent with thesmooth working of the system which the statutepurported to be regulating and that alternative is tobe rejected which will introduce uncertainty, frictionor confusion into the working of the system. (SeeCollector of Customs v. Digvijaysinhji Spg. & Wvg.Mills Ltd.1, SCR at p.899 and Kesavananda Bharati v.State of Kerala2.)Para 52. The court must always lean to theinterpretation which is a reasonable one, and discardthe literal interpretation which does not fit in withthe scheme of the Act under consideration.Para 56. The amendment brought about in theIndian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, in 2003 byintroduction of Sections 13-A, 13-B and 13-C are theprovisions for continuance of the institution whichhas not obtained prior permission of the CentralGovernment and, therefore, time-limit of three yearshas been provided under Section 13-C to regularise theinstitution’s affairs as required under the Act byseeking permission of the Central Government.Insertion of Section 13-A in the 1970 Central Act inthe year 2003 has regulated the opening of anindigenous medical college. The non obstante clauseclearly indicates that a medical institution cannot beestablished except with the prior permission of theCentral Government. Para 57. Under Section 13-B, any medicalqualification granted by the colleges establishedwithout the prior permission of the Central Governmentis not a recognised medical qualification. Thereasonable reading of Section 13-C(1) puts theexisting colleges on a par with the new colleges asboth of them are required to seek permission withinthree years from the commencement of the amending Act.The phrase “on or before” has made it clear that theexisting colleges are also required to seek permissionand there is no exemption.Para 58. Section 13-C(2) further provides thatthe medical qualification granted by existing collegeswhose establishment has not been recognised by theCentral Government, the medical qualification would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not be a recognised qualification. Similar requirementis to be fulfilled by the new medical colleges openedi.e. to seek permission of the Central Government forthe medical qualification to be recognisedqualification. Thus, new colleges or existing collegescannot any more grant a recognised qualificationwithout the sanction of the Central Government.Section 13-C(2) does not say that the effect of non-permission by the Central Government to the existingcolleges after the amending Act came into force wouldrender the medical qualifications already granted bythe existing colleges before the insertion of Sections13-A, 13-B and 13-C in 2003, unrecognised.Para 59. The whole spectrum of the amendmentbrought about by introducing Sections 13-A, 13-B and13-C indicates that it has an application from thedate they have been introduced by an amendment in the1970 Central Act. The effect of the amendment broughtabout is clear to us that all the medical collegeswhich are in existence or the medical colleges whichhave to be established should compulsorily seekpermission of the Central Government within the periodprovided and on failure to get the permission of theCentral Government the medical qualification grantedto any student of such medical college shall not be arecognised medical qualification for the purposes ofthe 1970 Act. The established colleges are alsorequired to seek permission of the Central Governmentfor the medical qualification to be recognised medicalqualification but it would not mean that the alreadyconferred medical qualification of the studentsstudied in such previously established medicalcolleges would not be a recognised medicalqualification under the 1970 Act.Para 60. On a reasonable construction of thesesections, we hold that the provisions of Section 13-Bwhereby the qualification granted to any student of amedical college would not be deemed to be a recognisedmedical qualification would not apply. When a degreehas been legally conferred on the students prior tothe commencement of the amending Act of 2003, it shallbe treated as a recognised degree although the medicalcollege has not sought permission of the CentralGovernment within a period of three years from thecommencement of the amending Act of 2003.Thus it can be seen that the Supreme Court while upholding thevalidity of the Central amendment held that in respect ofSection 13B, derecognition of a degree granted under Stateenactment cannot be retrospective in character. In other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respects, the overriding effect of the Central Law over theState enactment was well recognised by the Supreme Court.Therefore to the extent the T.N.Siddha Act is repugnant to theprovisions of the Central Act, it will be inoperative.22. The question therefore is to what extent the T.N.Siddha Act isrepugnant to the Central Act has to be considered. Before going into thesaid issue, it is necessary to refer to a similar controversy whicharose between the veterinary practitioners registered under theMaharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 (State Act) vis-a-vis theprovisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (Central Act)came up before the Supreme Court in the case relating to Udai SinghDagar and others -vs- Union of India and others reported in (2007) 10SCC 306. It is necessary to refer to paragraphs 37, 49, 50, 54, 55, 81and 82 which read as follows:- ''Para 37. The validity of a statute wouldordinarily be tested keeping in view the socialconditions as were existing on the date of coming intoforce thereof. It is one thing to say that a law causeshardship to a section of the people but it is anotherthing to say that the same would be unconstitutional.It may be that with the passage of time, a statutewhich was intra vires on the date of coming into forceof the Act may be considered to be ultra vires.However, for that there should be sufficient materialswhich are either brought on record or of which thecourt can take judicial notice. The difficulty wouldarise where the materials brought on record may providefor divergent views. In such a situation, the courtwill not ordinarily exercise its power of judicialreview over legislation. The facts on the basis whereofthe legislature of a State or Parliament had chosen torely upon should be the guiding factor. The legislatureor executive can have several choices or options todeal with a matter, and courts cannot say which choiceor option should have been preferred.Para 49. Furthermore, the Central Act is flexible.It not only recognises the degrees granted by theinstitutions recognised by it, it provides extension ofgrant of such recognition to other institutions also ifthey satisfy the tests. Undoubtedly, such a flexiblesituation has been created by reason of the Central Actonly to meet the exigencies of the situations arisingin future, if any.Para 50. It is not for this Court to arrive at aconclusive opinion that the rural areas continue to beheavily dependant on the certificate-holders for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ providing essential veterinary services as wassubmitted on behalf of the petitioners. The State ispresumed to know the needs of the citizens.Para 54. It is one thing to say that laying downsuch qualification or taking away the right of thepractitioners to continue their practice isunconstitutional but it is another thing to say thatthe same cannot be given retrospective effect.Para 55. A statute does not operateretrospectively only because a person’s right tocontinue in profession comes to an end. A person willhave a right to enter into a profession and continuetherewith provided he holds the requisitequalification. As and when a qualification is laid downby a law within the meaning of sub-clause (g) of Clause(1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, thesame would come into effect. In other words, it wouldact prospectively and, thus, not retrospectively,inasmuch as the practice he had already enjoyed is nottaken away.Para 81. We cannot also accept the submission ofMr Nariman that, as for certain reasons with which weare not at present concerned, a large number ofcertificate-holders could not file application forgetting themselves registered, they have derived anaccrued right to have their names entered in theregister. For the purpose of registration, theconditions laid down under Regulation 3 were to befulfilled. A person, thus, is not entitled to beregistered by the State Council or the Central Councilonly because he holds an educational qualification.Several other factors are required to be taken intoconsideration therefor. The right to practice or rightto be in service or right to obtain an appointment ingovernment or semi-government organisation would, thus,be dependant upon a person’s name being registeredtherefor in the State or Central register, as the casemay be. So long as their names are not on the register,the question of their acquiring any vested or accruedright does not arise. In a case of this nature, thecourt cannot confer a right to practice on thecertificate-holders despite the fact that their namesdo not find place in the register maintained by theState Council or the Central Council. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Para 82. Despite our aforementioned findings, weare of the opinion that those who are in service of theState or the semi-government or local self-governmentorganisations must be held to have a right to continuein service. The employees of the State enjoy a status.A person who enjoys a status can be deprived therefromonly in accordance with law having regard to the natureof right conferred on him under Article 311 of theConstitution of India. The law in this behalf, in ouropinion, is clear. Their nature of duty may change butthey would be otherwise entitled to continue inservice. The State of Maharashtra or for that mattereven the other States have issued notification(s) interms of Clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act.Minor veterinary services, therefore, having beenspecified in terms of the said notification, thosecertificate-holders who are in the services of theState or the other semi-government organisations areentitled to continue in service, subject of course to,carrying out their duties strictly in terms of thenotification issued by the State under Clause (b) ofSection 30 of the Central Act. In the event, any Statehas not issued such a notification, they may do so".23. If it is seen in the light of the above legal precedents, thenthere will be no difficulty in holding that the State legislatureenacting the T.N.Siddha Act for the purpose of providing development ofSiddha system of medicine and regulating the practitioners of Siddhamedicine in the State of Tamil Nadu and for establishing the Tamil NaduSiddha Medical Council including providing for a State Registercontaining the names of siddha practitioners as valid. 24. However, to the extent the State enactment providing forestablishment of Siddha Medical Institution in terms of Section 2(15)and grant of prior approval by the State Government for establishing aSiddha medical institution with the approval of the State Council asfound in section 3(1) as well as starting of Siddha medical institutionby the Government and not to have any approval in terms of the CentralAct as found in section 3(2) and clothing the State Council with thepower under section 13(1) so as to enable it to establish Siddha medicalinstitution with the approval of the Government, to give approval toestablish Siddha medical institution, to withdraw such approval with theprevious approval of the Government, and prescription of qualificationsin the Schedule provided under section 18(1)(a) as well as allowing anyperson who in the opinion of the Council has qualification to enter hisname in the Register as found in section 19(2) and also section 25(1)authorising the registered practitioner to give certificate equivalentto that of a medical practitioner and also to have a wider definition ofthe term 'legally qualified medical practitioner' under section 25(2)and the prohibition of a person to practice Siddha medicine other than https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ those who are registered under section 18 in terms of section 26(1) andsection 27 granting recognition to an institution established by aCouncil and section 34 providing for a Schedule to include degrees,diplomas and certificate approved by the State Government withoutreference to the Central Government and Central Council will be ultravires and unconstitutional.25. In the light of the above, it is hereby declared that Sections 2(15), 3(1), 3(2), 13(1), 18(1)(a), 19(2), 25(1), 25(2), 26(1), 27 and 34of the Tamil Nadu Siddha System of Medicine (Development andRegistration of Practitioners) Act, 1997 are unconstitutional and ultravires the Central Act. 26. In respect of the provisions which are held to beunconstitutional, the Central Act 48 of 1970 will have to be followed bythe State Government. In other respects, the T.N.Siddha Act is valid andconstitutional.27. All the three writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed. However,there will be no order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ssa/jsTo1. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council, Anna Hospital Campus, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.2. The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.3. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, Anna Hospital Campus, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.4. The Registrar, Central Council of Indian Medicine, No.61-65, Institution Area, Janakpuri New Delhi-110 058. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.6. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.7. The President, Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council, Anna Hospital Campus, Arumbakkam,Chennai-106.+ 2 CC to Mr.R.Muralidharan, Advocate SR.NO.3951 & 3952+ 3 CC to Mr.P.Rajagopal, Advocate SR.NO.3974 & 3976+ 3 CC to Government Pleader, SR.NO.4378 to 4380 W.P.Nos.402, 403 and5239 of 1999 andconnected W.M.P.SSN(CO)EM/5.2.09