The Supreme Court acknowledged the value of Ayurveda doctors and the need to promote alternative medical systems, but ruled that they are not entitled to the same pay as MBBS doctors because they do not perform the same duties.
A bench comprising Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal overturned a Gujarat High Court ruling that equated Ayurveda practitioners with MBBS physicians regarding pay benefits.
The bench clarified that it is aware that the two professions do not perform equivalent work, and therefore cannot be granted the same compensation.
“Allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency duties and to provide trauma care. By the very nature of the science that they practice and with the advancement of science and modern medical technology, the emergency duty that Allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing, cannot be performed by Ayurveda doctors. It is also not possible for Ayurveda doctors to assist surgeons performing complicated surgeries, while MBBS doctors can assist,” the Judgment said.
The Bench clarified that while alternative systems of medicine may have a “proud place in history,” such practitioners cannot perform or assist in surgeries in the present day.
“It is common knowledge that during out-patient days (OPD) in general hospitals in cities/towns, MBBS doctors are made to attend to hundreds of patients, which is not the case with Ayurveda doctors. Even while recognizing the importance of Ayurveda doctors and the need to promote alternative/indigenous systems of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay.”
The Bench was listening to the Gujarat government’s appeal against a 2013 High Court decision, which held that Ayurveda doctors were entitled to the same benefits recommended by the Tikku Pay Commission as their MBBS counterparts.
The Supreme Court made it evident from the outset that a classification based on educational qualification does not breach Articles 14 and 16, using several precedents.
With regards to the issue of parity between modern medicine and Ayurveda doctors, the Bench stated, “The practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine do not perform complicated surgical operations. A study of Ayurveda does not authorise them to perform these surgeries.”
Even post-mortem/autopsies or magisterial inquiries into the causes of death are not performed by Ayurveda doctors, it was noted.
The appeal was, thus, allowed.
