'Will Sensitize Doctors To Miserable Health Conditions' : Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay Compulsory Rural Service Condition

The Karnataka High Court has held that notification date June 8 which called upon the fresh doctors to undergo compulsory rural service for a period of one year (under provisions of the Karnataka Compulsory Service to Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act 2012 (Compulsory Act), to be 'reasonable' and that the legislation promulgated by the State in regard to compulsory rural service is not in conflict with either the Indian Medical Council Act or National Medical Commission Act. A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum refused interim relief to over 180 MBBS doctors who have filed petitions in the High Court challenging government notification calling upon them for registering online for the Compulsory Rural Service. "The service bonds calling upon the fresh doctors to undergo one year Rural service appears to be reasonable", the Court said. Further it said, "The legal relationship between the petitioners and the State is that the latter will provide education in medicine by way of subsidized fees on the condition that qualified doctors would serve the rural areas of the State for a specific period of time. This has to be taken as a composite bargain between the State and the students and therefore, the students are bound to undergo compulsory rural service since they have voluntarily executed the Bonds." The petitioners Dr Prathana N and others had contended that the 2012 Act is a State legislation whereas the NMC Act is a legislation passed by the Parliament and therefore, under Article 254(1), any provision of law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to the provision of law made by the Parliament to which Parliament is competent to enact. Senior Advocate K G Raghavan appearing for one of the petitioners submitted that the NMC Act repeals the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short 'the IMC Act') and creates overarching scheme to regulate medical education and medical profession and therefore, to ascertain whether there is a repugnancy, the test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is the only criterion of repugnance. Further, he argued that under the NMC Act a person has a right to practice medicine immediately upon qualifying the National Exit Test under Sections 15 and 33 of the NMC Act. However, under the IMC Act read with 2012 Act, a person, though even after completing medical course, is not entitled to get registered on the rolls and cannot practice medicine until he/she compulsorily serves the Government. In this background, he would submit to this Court that there is obvious inconsistency between the 2012 Act and therefore, it is repugnant to the NMC Act. He even contended that "There is a sea change in the scheme of registration under the NMC Act. Post NMC Act, a person need not satisfy the conditions laid down by the State Government in order to secure registration and obtain a license to practice medicine." Advocate N. Khetty, appearing for National Medical Council contended that the main ground of attack by the petitioners that the 2006 Rules are repugnant to the NMC Act, which has brought about a sea change pursuant to its replacing by the IMC Act is misconceived. He also said the NMC Act has brought about changes in the realm of academia and the medical profession. The application and operation of the NMC Act is prospective. Finally, placing reliance on the judgement in the case of Bushra Abdul Aleem Vs Government of Karnataka, which upheld the 2012 Act, he submitted that repugnancy of State enactment on compulsory service was urged vis-a-vis IMC Act and the said contentions were negatived by the Judge. Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioners who have completed medicine have voluntarily executed the bond that they will provide service in Rural areas of Karnataka and now they cannot turn around and challenge the same. Court findings: The court went through the provisions of the NMC Act and said "The object of introducing NMC Act can be traced from the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Modern Dental College & Research Centre. Therefore, if the IMC Act is compared with the new regime under the NMC Act, this Court would prima facie find that there is no sea change under the Act as contended." It added "Though the theory of repugnancy is set up by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court would prima facie find that there is no much difference between the IMC Act with the present new NMC Act. The IMC Act did not contemplate compulsory service though the previous regime had power which can be traced under the Entry 66 of List-I. Similarly under the new Act, the power to regulate compulsory service also vests under the NMC Act. However, the Legislature has not embarked upon bringing in the component of compulsory service within the ambit of NMC Act as of now. ...

'Will Sensitize Doctors To Miserable Health Conditions' : Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay Compulsory Rural Service Condition

Mustafa Plumber

"The service bonds calling upon the fresh doctors to undergo one year Rural service appears to be reasonable", Court said.

Tags