The Gujarat High Court’s ruling that Ayurveda practitioners should receive the same pay benefits as MBBS doctors has been overturned by the Supreme Court. In their decision, Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal acknowledged that the two categories of doctors do not perform the same work and therefore cannot be entitled to equal pay. The court explained that while allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency and trauma care, Ayurveda doctors are not capable of providing the same level of care due to the nature of their science and the limitations of their medical technology. Additionally, Ayurveda doctors are unable to assist with complex surgeries, which MBBS doctors are able to do.
The Supreme Court clarified that while alternative systems of medicine may have a historical significance, in modern times, such practitioners are not permitted to perform or assist in surgeries. The court explained that during outpatient days in general hospitals, MBBS doctors attend to a much larger number of patients compared to Ayurveda doctors.
Although the court recognises the importance of Ayurveda doctors and the promotion of alternative medicine, they emphasised that the two categories of doctors do not perform equal work and therefore should not be entitled to equal pay.
The Supreme Court was considering the Gujarat government’s appeal against a 2013 High Court order that stated Ayurveda doctors were entitled to the same pay benefits recommended by the Tikku Pay Commission as MBBS doctors. The court emphasised that a classification based on educational qualifications does not violate Articles 14 and 16, citing several previous legal precedents.
Regarding the matter of equality between modern medicine doctors and Ayurveda practitioners, the Supreme Court stated that Ayurveda doctors are not authorised to perform complicated surgeries, as their study of indigenous medicine does not cover such procedures. The court also noted that Ayurveda doctors are not normally qualified to perform post-mortem examinations or assist in magisterial inquiries. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, with advocates Archana Pathak Dave, Swati Ghildiyal, and Devyani Bhatt appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat, and advocates Nirav Majmudar, Priank Adhyaru, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, and Kusum Chaudhary representing the respondents.
WRITTEN BY VAISHNAVI GOEL ,6th semester (Ba.Llb), Punjabi university, Punjab school of law , Patiala
0 Comments