Supreme Court strikes down Assam Rural Health Regulators Act, 2004 upholds Gauhati HC decision
Last Updated on January 31, 2023 by Administrator
Issues:
The key issue was whether the Assam Rural Health Regulators Act 2004 was unconstitutional and violated the Indian Medical Council Act 1956.
Facts of the case:
In 2004, the Assam government enacted the Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act in view of the shortage of qualified doctors willing to recruit qualified doctors to rural areas.
Act established a three-year diploma course in medicine and rural health care and established a regulatory authority to regulate and register diploma holders.
The 2005 regulations of the Assam Rural Health Inspectorate stipulate that rural health workers should only treat common ailments on a list, perform certain minor surgeries, and prescribe only medicines on a specific list.
The motion noted that the High Court held that, under the application of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, the state government should obtain permission from the central government before commencing the diploma course in question. there is
The High Court, therefore, ruled that the act in question was unconstitutional without the permission of the Central Government and the consent of the President.
Arguments:
The Assam Law is intended to regulate such aspects of medical education [belonging to the exclusive domain of the Parliament]. Still, it may be abolished due to the lack of jurisdiction of the State Council.
Reasoning:
This law was ultra vires, the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956. Under section 10A of the IMC Act, state governments had to obtain permission from the central government before starting the diploma course.
Related Provisions:
- Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004
- Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956
