The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea filed by the Delhi Optometrists Association (DOA) seeking a direction to constitute an independent Optometry Council of India. [Delhi Optometrist Association (DOA) vs Union of India]

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma asked the petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court.

The Court said the issue must be considered by the High Court first.

“Go to Delhi High Court,” Justice Datta said.

The plea before the top court challenged the inclusion of optometry professionals under the “Ophthalmic Sciences Professional Council” created under Entry 5 of the Schedule to the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) Act, 2021.

The plea said this classification was unjustified, irrational and unconstitutional.

According to the petitioners, the provision is contradictory and regressive and undermines optometry as an independent primary healthcare profession.

The classification threatens the very existence of the profession, the petitioner submitted.

The plea also referred to global practices. It said optometry is recognised as an independent discipline in countries such as Tanzania, Texas, South Australia and Singapore.

Appearing for the association, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted that similar concerns have been raised across the country.

She said multiple petitions have been filed by optometrist associations in various States.

Justice Datta, however, questioned the reliance on international standards at the Article 32 stage.

“At the Article 32 stage, what Tanzania has done, what Texas has done, what South Australia has done, and what India has introduced, which is not accepted internationally, cannot be be the test,” he observed

The Bench said India’s framework must be examined in its own context.

“We are a unique country. Our problems are diverse and unique. Let us trust our legislators. If they are found to be on the wrong side of the Constitution, the High Courts are there. Let us have a reasoned judgment from the High Court,” Justice Datta said.

He then told the petitioner,

“Either withdraw with liberty to approach the High Court or we will dismiss it.”

At this stage, Arora sought time to obtain instructions.

“Please keep it for next week. I will have instructions. I will try and satisfy My Lords. If I am unable to do that, I will withdraw it,” she said.

Justice Satish Kumar Sharma said,

“What is the problem in approaching the Delhi High Court? We are having the finest judges there.”

Ultimately, the petitioner withdrew the plea and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court.

The petition was filed through advocate Purushottam Sharma Tripathi.

[Read Live Coverage]