Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Registration of Practitioners) Act, 1997 and Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine Rules.
  • Section 17(3)-B of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
  • Section 2(1)(e) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
  • SECTION 11 CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Registration of Practitioners) Act, 1997 and Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine Rules.
  • Section 17(3)-B of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
  • Section 2(1)(e) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
  • SECTION 11 CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971
Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion — Contempt Petition under Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Factual and Procedural Background

A Contempt Petition was filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking punishment of the 4th Respondent for alleged wilful and wanton disobedience of this Court's order dated 07.04.2006 in W.P.M.P. No. 10746 of 2006 in W.P. No. 9648 of 2006. The April 7, 2006 order granted an interim injunction restraining the 4th Respondent from interfering with the professional practice of members of the Petitioner's Association who held valid registration certificates issued by the 3rd Respondent Council and who were entitled to practice as registered Siddha Medical Practitioners under Section 2(1)(e) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and specified notifications (30.10.1996; 22.01.2004; 19.05.2004).

The Petitioner alleged that after the 2006 order, several members of the Petitioner's Association were arrested between 09.01.2009 and 12.06.2010 in contravention of the Court's order. The Principal Secretary to Government issued communications (dated 15.06.2010 and related dates) clarifying that institutionally qualified practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani registered with the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine are eligible to practice their respective systems with modern scientific medicine to the extent of their training, and instructing District Police not to intervene with practice by registered practitioners; cases of doctors already under arrest were to be reviewed.

On 09.07.2010, when the Contempt Petition was moved, the Special Government Pleader was asked to obtain instructions. The Special Government Pleader placed before the Court a Circular Memorandum issued by the Director General of Police dated 19.06.2010, which (referring to government letters dated 15.06.2010 and 16.06.2010) instructed all police authorities not to intervene with the practice of registered practitioners of Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy and to review cases of those already under arrest.

In light of the DGP's Circular Memorandum, the Court recorded that no proceedings could be initiated against eligible registered practitioners practising modern scientific medicine to the extent of their training, directed that any action taken should be dropped forthwith pending further orders in the writ petition, closed the Contempt Petition recording the Circular, and directed the Respondent to circulate a copy of the order to concerned authorities.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the 4th Respondent wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the Court's interim injunction dated 07.04.2006 restraining interference with the practice of registered Siddha Medical Practitioners.
  2. Whether arrests of members of the Petitioner's Association between 09.01.2009 and 12.06.2010 constituted contempt of the Court's order dated 07.04.2006.
  3. Whether the government communications (including the Principal Secretary's letters and the DGP's Circular Memorandum dated 19.06.2010) alter or clarify enforcement of the Court's order and require review or dropping of criminal proceedings against registered practitioners pending the writ petition.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Petitioner, through Mr. Prabhakaran, contended that members of the Petitioner's Association had been arrested between 09.01.2009 and 12.06.2010 in violation of the Court's order dated 07.04.2006.

Respondent's/State's Position

  • The Respondent (through the Special Government Pleader) placed before the Court the DGP's Circular Memorandum dated 19.06.2010 which (a) records the Government's clarification that institutionally qualified practitioners of Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani and Homeopathy are eligible to practise aspects of modern scientific medicine according to their training (referring to Section 17(3)-B of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970), and (b) instructs police officers not to intervene in the practice of registered practitioners and to review cases of those already under arrest.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the prior interim injunction of 07.04.2006 and the subsequent government communications and the DGP's Circular Memorandum dated 19.06.2010. The Circular explained that police inspections had led to arrests of registered practitioners who were being treated as quacks, and it relied upon statutory provision (identified in the Circular as Section 17(3)-B of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970) to clarify that institutionally qualified practitioners of Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani and Homeopathy are eligible to practise modern scientific medicine to the extent of their training (including specialties such as Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, Anesthesiology, ENT, Ophthalmology).

On the basis of the Circular, the Court concluded that proceedings should not be initiated against those registered practitioners who are eligible to practise as described. The Court applied the government clarification and the DGP's instructions as operative directions for enforcement, and held that any action taken against such registered practitioners should be dropped forthwith pending further orders in the writ petition. The Contempt Petition was thereupon closed, the Circular being recorded by the Court, and the Respondent was directed to communicate the order to concerned authorities for implementation.

Holding and Implications

CONTEMPT PETITION CLOSED

Direct effect on the parties:

  • The Contempt Petition alleging disobedience of the Court's order dated 07.04.2006 was closed by the Court after recording the DGP's Circular Memorandum dated 19.06.2010.
  • The Court directed that no proceedings be initiated against registered practitioners of Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy who are eligible to practise aspects of modern scientific medicine according to their training, and that any action already taken against such practitioners should be dropped forthwith pending further orders in the writ petition.
  • The Respondent was ordered to communicate a copy of the Court's order to the concerned authorities for due implementation.

No broader precedent was stated to have been set by this opinion; the decision records and gives effect to the government clarification and a police circular and addresses the immediate enforcement and review of actions against registered practitioners.

    Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Graduates' Association, Rep. By Its President, 354, 19Th Cross Street, Nsk Nagar, Chennai-600 106 Petitioner v. Letika Saran, I.P.S, The Director General Of Police (Law & Order), Kamarajar Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004

    Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the 4th Respondent for her wilful and wanton disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P No. 10746 of 2006 in W.P No. 9648 of 2006 dated 7.4.2006

    JUDGMENT

    1. This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 07.04.2006 passed in W.P.M.P No. 10746 of 2006 in W.P No. 9648 of 2006. The specific order was to the following effect:

    “There will be an order of interim injunction restraining the 4th Respondent from interfering with the professional practice of such of those members of the Petitioner's Association who hold valid registration certificate issued by the 3rd Respondent Council and till such time such registration continue to hold valid to practice as registered Siddha Medical Practioners as prescribed under Section 2(1)(e) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 as well as as per the notifications issued under the said Act dated 30.10.1996, 22.1.2004 and 19.5.2004

    Notice.”

    2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that subsequent to the said order, the Principal Secretary to Government in his communication addressed to Director General of Police with a copy marked to the Registrar of Tamil Nadu Homeopathy Medical Council enclosed a further communication dated 15.6.2010 wherein he made it clear that Institutionally qualified Practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani who are registered in the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine are eligible to practice in the respective system with Allopathy based on the training and teaching they had in the Course and that they cannot exclusively do the practice in Allopathy Medicine. In the very same communication, a further direction was issued to the following effect:

    “I am therefore to request you to instruct the Police Officers in the Districts not to intervene with the Practice of Registered Practitioners of Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani and Naturopathy who are registered in the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council and Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine. If any of these ISM Doctors are exclusively doing practice in Allopathy Medicine, names of these Doctors may be intimated to the Council and the Government for taking action against them under the Tamil Nadu Sidha System of Medicine (Development and Registration of Practitioners) Act, 1997 and Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine Rules. The cases of the Doctors who are already under arrest may be reviewed with reference to the above clarification.”

    3. However, Mr. Prabhakaran, learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court certain arrest of members of the Petitioner-Association was made between 09.1.2009 and 12.6.2010 in violation of the orders of this Court dated 07.04.2006 When the Contempt Petition was moved on 09.7.2010, learned Special Government Pleader was directed to get instructions about the action taken based on the communication of the Principal Secretary to the Government dated 16.10.2010 as well as the compliance of the order dated 07.04.2006 To day, the Special Government Pleader placed before the Court, a Circular Memo issued by the Respondent dated 19.6.2010 which reads as under:

    “Rc. No. 147472.Cr.IV(2)/2010, Office of the Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004, dated:19.06.2010

    CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM

    Sub: Indian System of Medicine - Police action against qualified Indian Medicine Doctors - Instructions issued - Regarding.

    Ref: Govt.Lr No. 22715.Lmll(2)/Health Family Welfare Department, dated 15.06.2010 & 16.06.2010

    In the reference cited, the Government have stated that the Police Department in the course of their action against the Quacks has inspected the clinics run by the registered medical practitioners in Siddha, Ayurveda, Homeopathy and Unani and arrested some of them as if they had practiced Allopathy System of Medicine. The Government have informed that as per Section 17(3)-B of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 the institutionally qualified practitioners of Siddha, Ayurveda and Unani Tibb Homeopathy are eligible to practice respective systems with modern scientific medicine including Surgery and Gynecology Obstetrics, Anesthesiology, ENT, Opthalmology, etc. based on the training and teaching.

    (2) Hence all Commissioners of Police/Inspectors General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendents of Police are requested to instruct the Police Officers in the Cities and Districts not to intervene with the practice of registered practitioners of Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy who are registered in the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council, Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine and Tamil Nadu Homeopathy Medical Council. If any cases of the Doctors who are already under arrest may be reviewed with reference to the above clarification.

    (3) The letter from the Health & Family Welfare Department at 15.06.2010 is enclosed for perusal.

    (4) The instructions should be scrupulously followed.

    (5) Receipt of this Circular Memo may be acknowledged.

    Sd/- K. Radhakrishnan

    ADGP(Law & Order)

    All Commissioners of Police in the Cities.

    All Inspectors General of Police in Zones.

    All Deputy Inspectors General of Police in Range.

    All Superintendents of Police in the Districts.”

    /True Copy/Forwarded/By Order/

    Personal Assistant (Admn)”

    4. In the light of the said Circular, it is imperative that no proceedings can be initiated against any of those registered practitioners in Siddha, Ayurveda, Homeopathy and Unani, who are eligible to practice irrespective of the respective system also with Modern Scientific Medicine including Surgery and Gynecology Obstetrics, Anesthesiology, ENT, Opthalmology, etc. Such registration of the medical practitioners with Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council, Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine and Tamil Nadu Homeopathy Medical Council as well as such of those qualified doctors who were recognised as such by the Madurai Kamaraj University and Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University who have been qualified respectively in the system of bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery. If any action had been taken against such of those medical practitioners referred to above, it is needless to state that, such action should be dropped forthwith pending further orders in the Writ Petition.

    5. Contempt Petition is closed recording the above Circular memorandum issued by the Director General of Police. The Respondent is directed to communicate a copy of the order to the concerned authorities for its due implementation.

    BV

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Tamil Nadu Siddha Me... v. Letika Saran, I.P.S,...
    (Jul 23, 2010)