Supreme Court strikes down Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act which allowed diploma holders to treat certain diseases

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Gauhati High Court judgment which had struck down the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act of 2004 which allowed diploma holders to treat certain diseases [Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association]. .A bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna ruled that prescription of minimum standards for higher education, authorities to recognise or de-recognise an institution etc. are areas over which exclusive legislative competence to make law lies with the parliament under Entry 66 List 1 of the Constitution, and not the State legislature..The State legislatures on the other hand under Entry 25 of List 3 of the Constitution possess legislative competence to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education except the determination of minimum standards and coordination, the Court said.Hence, State legislature lacks the competence in the area of prescription of minimum standards for medical education, the Court underlined."The Assam Act which seeks to regulate such aspects of medical education is therefore liable to be set aside on the ground that the State legislature lacks competence to legislate wrt the aspects enumerated above," the Court ordered..The appellants had challenged an order of the High Court which struck down the Assam Act.They argued that as per the Supreme Court's decision in the case of R Chitralekha v State of Mysore, only when the state legislation makes it impossible or difficult for the parliament to legislate, can it be struck down and not otherwise..On the other hand, the respondents said that students graduating for the diploma course would be ill-equipped as doctors. This would pose a risk to patients who require quality medical assistance and treatment, they further argued.Additionally, it was highlighted that it was the fundamental right of a patient to receive quality medical assistance which meets the standards prescribed by the Indian Medical Council or by the parliament. However, this could not be provided by those who do not have requisite qualifications as per the standards set..In its judgment, the top court also noted that the State had enacted the Assam Community Professional Registration and Competency Act in 2015 to remove the basis of the High Court judgment and to restore the position of the diploma holders. "The basis of the impugned judgment has been removed and therefore, that is constitutionally valid," the Court said.The Court also held that the the Assam Act is in conflict with the central law, the Indian Medical Council Act."Hence, when there is a direct conflict between a State law and Union law, in a matter of coordination and determination of standards in higher education, State law cannot have any validity," the Court ruled..The Court also discussed the reasoning of the High Court that the Assam Act was void on account of repugnancy as per Article 254 of the Constitution since there was no Presidential assent.It was noted that the doctrine of repugnancy would not apply in the case at hand. "The Assam Act and Rules and Regulations made under the said Act, being in conflict with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (IMC Act, 1956) and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, the doctrine of repugnancy as such would not apply within the meaning of Article 254 of the Constitution.".[Read Judgment]