The Maharashtra state law granting homeopathic practitioners the right to practise allopathy does not violate constitutional rights, public health standards, or existing medical regulatory statutes.
Aaj hum ek atyant mahatvapoorn constitutional sawaal par vichar karenge — kya Maharashtra sarkar ko yeh adhikar hai ki woh homeopathic practitioners ko allopathic practice ki anumati de, aur kya aisa karna Bharat ke Samvidhan ki kasauti par khara utarta hai? Yeh debate public health, legislative competence, aur nagarikon ke adhikaron ko seedha chhooti hai — isliye main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karungi ki woh apna paksh prastut karein.
My lord, main yeh prathamic nivedan karta hoon ki Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act ke Section 8 — jo Mah. 31 of 1984 dwara sanshodhit kiya gaya — ne State Legislature ko practitioners ki yogyata aur registration ke liye ek structured statutory framework diya hai, aur yeh framework Concurrent List Entry 26 ke antargat State ki legislative competence ke bheetar aata hai. Is Act ke antargat yadi State ne duly registered homoeopaths ko, certain conditions ke saath, allopathic practice ka adhikar diya hai, to yeh legislative policy ka ek valid exercise hai — na ki koi constitutional ulanghan. Vipaksh ko yeh sabit karna hoga ki koi express constitutional prohibition hai; sirf professional disagreement se koi statute ultra vires nahi ho jaata.
Ref: Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act. · Section 8
My lord, paksh ne jo dalil di hai woh ek fundamental constitutional flaw ko ignore karti hai — Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act ka Section 24 seedha kehta hai ki jo vyakti prescribed homoeopathic qualifications nahi rakhta, woh registration ka haqdar nahi hai, aur bina valid registration ke allopathy practice karna ek unqualified person dwara public health ke saath khilwad hai. Main yeh nivedan karti hoon ki yeh 'permission' constitutional validity ka coat nahi pehen sakti, kyunki ek State Act kisi practitioner ko woh competence nahi de sakta jo uske paas hai hi nahi — statute se skill nahi milti, my lord.
Ref: Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act. · Section 24
My lord, vipaksh ne qualification ka sawaal uthaya, lekin main kehna chahta hoon ki Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act ka Section 8 — jo Mah. 31 of 1984 dwara sanshodhit hai — practitioners ke liye ek structured registration aur eligibility framework establish karta hai, jo yeh siddh karta hai ki Legislature ne competence ka sawaal pahle hi consider kar liya tha. Is Act ke under registration system ka existence hi is baat ka praman hai ki State ne apni legislative competency ke tehat ek valid regulatory mechanism banaya — yeh arbitrary nahi, balki deliberate aur structured hai. Isliye constitutional validity par koi sawaal hi nahi uthta — Legislature ne apna kaam sahi tarah se kiya hai.
Ref: Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act. · Section 8
My lord, paksh ne jo argument diya hai woh surface-level hai — woh yeh nahi bata sake ki Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act ka Section 24, jo 'persons not entitled to registration' define karta hai, kaise override ho jaata hai sirf ek amendment se. Section 24 ke under, jo person qualified allopathic practice ke liye registered nahi hai, usse woh adhikar dena — yeh Act ke bheetar hi ek internal contradiction hai, aur constitutional validity ki baat baad mein aati hai. Main samajhti hoon ki paksh keh raha hai State Legislature ke paas power hai, lekin power hona aur us power ka constitutional exercise hona — yeh do alag cheezein hain, aur yahi is motion ka core sawaal hai.
Ref: Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act. · Section 24
Ek taraf ka kehna hai ki Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act ke amended provisions — khaas taur par Section 9(2) aur Section 16 — State ko yeh authority dete hain ki woh registered homoeopaths ki practice ka daaira badha sake, isliye yeh law constitutionally valid hai; doosri taraf ka kehna hai ki allopathy ek alag, regulated system hai aur bina adequate qualification ke uski practice karne ki permission public health ke saath khilwad hai aur constitutionally tenable nahi. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh rahegi ki yeh sawaal ultimately legislative competence aur public health ke beech ka naazeek balance hai — agar State chahti hai ki aise practitioners allopathy practise karein, to unhe mandatory bridge-course aur strict supervisory mechanism Act ke Section 16 ke under prescribe karna chahiye, taaki qualification ka gap pura ho aur citizens ki safety sunit ho. Aap sabse — hamare viewers aur citizens se — guzarish hai ki is debate ko rate karein aur apna considered view share karein.
Ref: Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act. · Section 9-2; Maharashtra Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act. · Section 16