Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 – Constitutionality of – Legislative Competency of the State – Assam State legislature enacted the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 – Said Act provides for the establishment of a regulatory authority to register the Diploma holders and to regulate their practice – State Act in conflict with Central Act (Indian Medical Council Act, 1956) – Writ Petition challenging the Constitutionality of the Act – High Court allowed the Writ petition by holding that the Act, 2004 was unconstitutional as the State Act was in conflict with the Central Act – High Court observed that the power and scope of the State to legislate under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule is very limited and is only in respect of a field unoccupied by a Central Act – Held: Prescription of minimum standards for medical education, authority to recognise or de-recognise an institution etc., are areas over which exclusive legislative competence lies with the Parliament, under Entry 66 of List I – The State Legislatures, on the other hand, under Entry 25 of List III, possess legislative competence to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education, except determination of minimum standards and coordination – In view of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, declared to be null and void as State Legislature not having the legislative competence to enact the said Law – The State Legislature has no legislative competence to enact a law which is in conflict with the law setting the standards of medical education in the context of modern medicine or allopathic medicine, which has been determined by Parliamentary Legislation as well as the Rules – Constitution of India – Seventh Schedule – List I, Entry 66 and List III, Entry 25.
Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 – Constitutionality of – Power of Legislature – To overrule a Judicial Decision – High Court vide the impugned order allowed Writ petition holding that the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 enacted by the State legislature was unconstitutional as the Act was in conflict with the Central Act (Indian Medical Council Act, 1956) and State Legislature not having the legislative competence to enact the said Law – Meanwhile, the State passed the Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 – Held: The Legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision – But when a competent Legislature retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of a judgment to make the decision ineffective, the said exercise is a valid legislative exercise provided it does not transgress on any other constitutional limitation – The power of the sovereign legislature to legislate within its field, both prospectively and retrospectively cannot be questioned – It would be permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in earlier legislation pointed out by a constitutional court in exercise of its powers by way of judicial review – The Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, enacted pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, is a valid piece of Legislation as it removed the basis of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court – The 2015 Act is also not in conflict with the IMC, Act, 1956 – This is because the Central Act namely, IMC, Act, 1956 does not deal with Community Health Professionals who would practise as allopathic practitioners in the manner as they were permitted to practise under the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, in rural areas of the State of Assam – Hence, by a separate legislation the Community Health Professionals have been permitted to practise as such professionals – The said legislation of 2015 is not in conflict with IMC, Act, 1956 and the rules and regulations made thereunder – Hence, the Act of 2015 is not hit by Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution and is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Constitution of India: Seventh Schedule – Art. 245, 246 &
254 – Interplay between Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III – Held: The question of invasion into another legislative territory has to be determined by substance and not by degree – Where one Entry is made ‘subject to’ another Entry, all that it means is that out of the scope of the former Entry, a field of legislation covered by the latter Entry has been reserved to be specially dealt with by the appropriate Legislature – The field of legislation covered under Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I – Dual restrictions operate in the legislative competence of a State Legislature to enact any law under Entry 25 of List III – First is, if such a law is to be made by the State Legislature, it is always subject to Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I or the Union List, in respect of which only the Parliament has the power to enact a law – The second restriction is with regard to the subject of the Entry as a whole – When any law is made under Entry 25 of List III by a State Legislature, the same is always subject to Entry 66 of List I – Modern scientific medicine or allopathic medicine is within the scope of Entry 66 of List I and not under Entry 25 of List III – In the instant case the law made by the State Legislature is hit by the first of the aforesaid two restrictions – Hence, the State Legislature lacked the legislative competence to enact such a Law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, which is enacted by the State Legislature on the strength of Entry 25 of List III, not only seeks to introduce a new course in the field of medical education, but also seeks to regulate the profession of the candidates successfully completing the said course. The Assam Act vests with the Regulatory Authority constituted thereunder, the power to prescribe the minimum standards of the course, duration of the course in allopathic medicine the curriculum, the examination etc. Further, it authorises the State Government to grant permission for the opening of a medical institute. Prescription of minimum standards for medical education, authority to recognise or de-recognise an institution etc., are areas over which exclusive legislative competence lies with the Parliament, under Entry 66 of List I. The State Legislatures, on the other hand, under Entry 25 of List III, possess legislative competence to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education, except the determination of minimum standards and co-ordination. With a view to provide a benchmark quality of medical education, it is essential that uniform standards be laid down by the Parliament, which are to be adhered to by institutions and medical colleges across the country. To this end, Entry 66 of List I has been formulated with the objective of maintaining uniform standards of education in fields of research, higher education and technical education. Hence, State Legislatures lack legislative competence in the areas of prescription of minimum standards for medical education, authority to recognise or de-recognise an institution, etc. The Assam Act which seeks to regulate such aspects of medical education is therefore liable to be set aside on the ground that the State Legislature lacks competence to legislate with regard to the aspects enumerated hereinabove. [Para 21][1007-C-G]
2. Although, Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is in the Concurrent List which gives powers to both the Union as well as the State Legislatures to pass laws on the subject of ‘Education’, it is significant to note that any such law to be made by the State Legislature is subject to, inter alia, Entry 66 of List I or the Union List of the Seventh Schedule. Hence, when there is a direct conflict between a State Law and the Union Law in the matter of coordination and determination of standards in higher education (Entry 66 of List I) such as in medical education, concerning allopathic medicine or modern medicine, as is in the instant case, where the State Law is in direct conflict with the Union law, the State Law cannot have any validity as the State Legislature does not possess legislative competence. In other words, the Assam Act and Rules and Regulations made under the said Act, being in conflict with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (IMC Act, 1956) and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, the doctrine of repugnancy as such would not apply within the meaning of Article
254 of the Constitution. The finding with regard to the constitutionality of the Assam Act of 2015 is limited to holding it non-repugnant with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. However, this Court is not rendering any finding with regard to any potential conflict of the provisions of the Assam Act of 2015 with the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. [Para 24][1014G-H; 1015-A-C]
3.1 Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India deals with the subject education which is in the Concurrent List under which both the Parliament or the Union Legislature as well as the State Legislatures have legislative competence to legislate. However, Entry 25 of List III is subject to, inter alia, Entry 66 of List I which is the Union List. Entry 66 of List I deals with coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. Thus, when any law is made under Entry
25 of List III by a State Legislature, the same is always subject to Entry 66 of List I. In other words, if any law made by the Parliament comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I, then the State Legislation would have to yield to the Parliamentary law. Thus, where one Entry is made “subject to” another Entry, it would imply that, out of the scope of the former Entry, a field of legislation covered by the latter Entry has been reserved to be specifically dealt with by the appropriate legislature. [Para 25(i)][1016-B-E]
3.2 The IMC Act, 1956 is a legislation made by the Parliament for the purpose of coordination and determination of standards in medical education throughout the Country. The said law, along with the Rules and Regulations made thereunder are for the purpose of determination of standards of medical education throughout India. Thus, determination of standards in medical education in India is as per the IMC Act, 1956 which is a Central Law. This is in respect of modern medicine or allopathic medicine within the scope of Entry 66 of List I and not under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. Therefore, a State Legislature which passes a law in respect of allopathic medicine or modern medicine would be subject to the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. This would imply that no State Legislature has the legislative competence to pass any law which would be contradictory to or would be in direct conflict with the IMC Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. In other words, the standard in medical education insofar as modern medicine or allopathy is concerned, having been set by the IMC Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder or by any subsequent Act in that regard, such as the Medical Council of India Act, 2019, the State Legislature has no legislative competence to enact a law which is in conflict with the law setting the standards of medical education in the context of modern medicine or allopathic medicine, which has been determined by Parliamentary Legislation as well as the Rules. In other words, a State Legislature has no legislative competence to enact a law in respect of modern medicine or allopathic medicine contrary to the said standards that have been determined by the Central Law. Hence, in view of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, the Assam Act, namely, the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, is declared to be null and void in view of the Assam Legislature not having the legislative competence to enact the said Law. [Para 25(ii) & (iii)][1016-F-H; 1017-A-D; 1018-A]
3.3 The Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, enacted pursuant to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, is a valid piece of Legislation as it has removed the basis of the impugned judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court. The 2015 Act is also not in conflict with the IMC, Act, 1956. This is because the Central Act namely, IMC, Act, 1956 does not deal with Community Health Professionals who would practise as allopathic practitioners in the manner as they were permitted to practise under the Assam Act, in rural areas of the State of Assam. Hence, by a separate legislation the Community Health Professionals have been permitted to practise as such professionals. The said legislation of 2015 is not in conflict with IMC, Act, 1956 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Hence, the Act of 2015 is not hit by Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution and is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. [Para 25(iv)][1018-B-E]
Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India (2021) 6 SCC 568 : [2020] 8 SCR 583 and Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality AIR 1970 SC 192 : [1970] 1 SCR 388 - followed.
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318 : [1951] 0 SCR 682; Atiabari Tea Company Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 232 : [1961] 1 SCR 809; RMDC v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628 : [1957] 0 SCR 930; State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104 : [1995] 2 SCR 1075; Modern Dental College and Research
Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2018 SC 3119 : [2018] 5 SCR 147; Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudhoklar AIR 1963 SC
703 : [1963] 1 Suppl. SCR 112; Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249; Indian Aluminium Company Co. v. State of Kerala AIR 1996 SC 1431 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 630; Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 124 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 630; M/s. Misrilal Jain v. State of Orissa AIR 1977 SC 1686 : [1977] 3 SCR 714 ; M/s. Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath, Lucknow v. State of U.P. AIR 1973 SC 405; Govt. of A.P. v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd AIR 1975 SC 2037; I.N. Saksena v. State of M.P AIR 1976 SC 2250: [1976] 3 SCR 237; Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. Bhubaneswar Singh AIR 1984 SC 1733 : [1985] 1 SCR 618; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Narain Singh (2009)
13 SCC 165 : [2009] 10 SCR 821 – relied on.
Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC
579 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 143; Dr. A. K. Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala 1992 Supp. 3 SCC 147 : [1992] 2 SCR 653; Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 112; R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore AIR 1964 SC 1823; Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420 : [2005] 2 SCR 23; Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 3 SCC 15 : [1996] 2 SCR 422; MCI v. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC
131 : [1998] 3 SCR 740; Hingir - Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1961 SC 459 : [1961] 2 SCR 537; Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others v. Union of India and Others (2019) 8 SCC 607 : [2019] 12 SCR 1011; Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna AIR 1947 P.C. 60; Ujagar Prints v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 516 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 770; United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum AIR 1941 FC 16; Calcutta Gas Company v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1044 : [1962] 3 Suppl. SCR 1; Hoechst
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1019 : [1983] 3 SCR 130; K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty & Sons & Co. v. The State of Madras AIR 1961 SC 1152 : [1961] 2 SCR 736; The South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue Trivandrum and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 207 : [1964] 4 SCR 280; Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (2004) 3 SCC 1 : [2004] 1 SCR 306; Subhasis Bakshi v. W.B. Medical Council (2003) 9 SCC 269 : [2003] 1
SCR 1150 and State of Bombay v. United Motors India Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252 : [1953] 0 SCR 1069 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.