- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Private Medical Practitioners' Association Of A.P v. Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Private Medical Practitioners' Association of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its President S.K. Habibuddin, challenged the proceedings dated 21-4-1995 issued by the District Medical, Health and Family Welfare Officer, Karimnagar. The impugned proceedings directed medical officers in the district to identify and take action against unlicensed medical practitioners, including seeking police assistance, and to submit monthly reports of such action. The petitioner Association, comprised of rural medical practitioners working in underserved areas, contended that its members have long served remote populations without formal medical qualifications but with practical experience, and that this practice is essential to meet local healthcare needs. The Association argued that the circular arbitrarily and illegally interfered with their established rights.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner Association’s members have a right to practice medicine without formal certification or qualification under existing regulatory laws.
- Whether the impugned circular directing action against unlicensed practitioners is lawful and within the authority of the District Medical Officer.
- Whether immemorial custom or practical experience can override statutory requirements for medical practice qualifications.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner Association consists of rural medical practitioners who provide essential healthcare services in remote areas lacking qualified doctors or government hospitals.
- The members have acquired medical experience through work in various hospitals and have served the community over a long period, with their practice continuing since time immemorial.
- Their services benefit poor and needy populations who cannot afford private nursing homes or travel to distant government hospitals.
- The members also assist in public health initiatives such as family planning, eye camps, anti-AIDS campaigns, immunisation, vaccination, and adult education programmes.
- The impugned circular arbitrarily and illegally disrupts their traditional practice and deprives them of established rights.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) in the interest of the general public. It noted that legislative frameworks regulate medical practice by requiring professional and technical qualifications. The petitioner did not claim or demonstrate possession of such qualifications under any regulatory law. The court emphasized that statutory regulation overrides immemorial customs and that the petitioner’s claimed customary rights cannot supersede statutory requirements. The District Medical Officer acted within lawful authority in directing identification and action against unlicensed practitioners. The court underscored the public interest in protecting life and health, which outweighs the petitioner’s claims to practice without certification. Consequently, the petition was found to be misconceived and dismissed.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to DISMISS the writ petition.
The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the authority of the District Medical Officer’s proceedings directing action against unlicensed medical practitioners. It confirms that statutory qualifications are mandatory for practicing medicine and that customary or experiential claims cannot override legal requirements. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the primacy of statutory regulation in medical practice.
1. Private Medical Practitioners' Association of Andhra Pradesh, Regd. No. 2225/94, Karimnagar represented by its President S.K. Habibuddin, seeks invalidation of the proceedings of the District Medical, Health and Family Welfare Officer, Karimnagar, the 2nd respondent dated 21-4-1995.
2. By the said proceedings the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the memo of the Government dated 30-3-1995, directed all the medical officers of Primary Health Centres, Civil Dispensaries and Civil Hospitals working in the District to identify and prepare a list of medical practitioners under their jurisdiction having qualifications and to take action against the unlicensed practitioners practising medicine under their jurisdiction and to take the police help to hook them. The Impugned circular also directs the officers to submit the action taken report in this regard to the 2nd respondent every month.
3. The petitioner contends that their Association is comprised of rural medical practitioners working in the rural areas serving the people who are badly in need of medical service and that all the members of the petitioner-Association have worked under different hospitals and acquired medical experience. These persons have registered their names with petitioner-Association and are serving the needs of the people in remote places where MBBS Doctors or Government Hospitals are not situated. The petitioner also states that this practice is continued since times Immemorial and no problems were earlier created by the rural medical practitioners "other than one or two Instances." The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition also states that the Rural Medical Practitioners are physically residing in the villages and attending to the medical problems. Thus the poor and needy are very much benefited. It is also averred that for small diseases it is difficult to afford or to go to private nursing homes or to the distinctly located Government Hospitals and that this acute need is filled by the members of the petitioners-Association. It is also asserted that the members of the petitioner-Association are extending their co-operation and help during family planning operations, eye camps, anti-AIDS camps, immunisation and vaccination programmes and in addition they are also participating in Aksharajyothi and Adult Edition programmes. In the circumstances, the intervention into and interdiction of their age old practice and profession by the impugned circular is arbitrary, illegal and amounts to deprivation of their established rights, is the contention of the petitioner.
4. The rights pleaded, urged and asserted by the petitioner are seen to be wholly vacuous and unfounded. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right, the right to pursue any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Article 19(6) however, saves the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes and enables the State to make any law, in the interests of the general public, imposing any reasonable restriction to exercise the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and particularly in the matter of fixing professional and technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any trade or occupation. Appropriate Legislatures have made laws contouring, structuring and regulating the right to practice the medical profession whether it is in the field of practice of Allopathic medicine or other forms of Indian medicine. The members of the petitioner Assoctation neither claim or demonstrate to be qualified or to be having certificates under any of such regulatory legislation.
5. It is too well settled a principle that when extant statutory instruments govern a field, immemorial customs, such as is pleaded by the petitioner, would not avail the assertion of any right contrary to the legal environment obtaining under the statute.
6. The petitioner has no right statutory or customary that would outweigh the writ-ten text of the legislation which bars their practising medicine without a necessary certification in that regard. The 2nd respondent is, therefore, well within his authority and jurisdiction in seeking statistics and thereafter directing the officials to initiate appropriate action under law to proceed against persons practising medicine without certificate or qualification. Unlicensed or uncertified medical practitioners jeopardise the life and health of the people. The claims of the members of the petitioner-Association to practice medicine without qualification or certification, is not a claim that would outweigh the right to life of the citizens. The writ petition is inherently misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Alert