DR. A.K. SABHAPATHY versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

DR. A.K. SABHAPATHY versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

The first proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, to the extent it permits persons to practise allopathic (modern) medicine without recognized qualifications, is inconsistent with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Sections 15 and 21 read with Sections 11-14, and therefore void to that extent under Article 254. Notifications issued under this proviso enabling such practice are also void.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy; Respondents: State of Kerala and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Kerala High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Repugnancy Under Article 254, Medical Council Regulation, Medical Practice Qualifications
Constitutional Law Medical Law Repugnancy Under Article 254 Medical Council Regulation Medical Practice Qualifications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy

Appellant

State of Kerala and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Kerala High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, as used to permit practice of allopathic medicine without recognized qualifications, is void under Article 254 due to repugnancy with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
  2. 2 Whether notifications issued by the State Government permitting certain diplomas for practice of modern medicine are valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The first proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, to the extent it permits persons to practise allopathic (modern) medicine without recognized qualifications, is inconsistent with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Sections 15 and 21 read with Sections 11-14, and therefore void to that extent under Article 254. Notifications issued under this proviso enabling such practice are also void.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • The notification dated April 13, 1981 enabling holders of DMS diploma to practise modern medicine is quashed.
  • The judgment and order of the Kerala High Court dated October 14, 1982 is set aside to the extent indicated.