0
0
A doctor checking a woman-s blood pressure
The Supreme Court declined to entertain applications seeking the withdrawal of its previous judgment, which held that Ayurveda doctors cannot claim equal pay on par with allopathy doctors. Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, on the top court bench, left open the option to file a review petition against this decision. Additionally, the Apex Court postponed the hearing of an application filed by the National Commission for Indian Systems of Medicine (NCISM) that sought modifications of the judgment dated 26.04.2023, until the review petition is resolved.
The Court noted that “Miscellaneous Application No. 26128/2023 (National Commission for Indian System of Medicine – NCISM) will await the decision of the review petition. It is also open to them to file a review petition if advised.”
Furthermore, the Medical Officers Association (Ayurveda) Gujarat was permitted to withdraw its writ petition since a review petition against the relevant order is pending.
The Apex Court bench also addressed another set of applications from Ayurvedic practitioners seeking modifications of the judgment dated 26.04.2023. The Court stated, “Coming to MA-25599 of 2023, it is not in dispute that the applicants have filed a petition for reconsideration of the order dated 26 April 2023. It is an admitted position that most of the applicants in this application were parties to Civil Appeal Nos. 8553-8557 of 2014. Since the applicants have filed a review petition, we decline to entertain this application and the same is disposed of. However, we make it clear that so far as the issue of recovery is concerned, the remedy will remain open to those who were not parties to the civil appeal. The disposal will not affect the merits of the review petitions filed by the applicants.”
In opposition to the earlier order, the Medical Officers Association (Ayurveda), State of Gujarat, approached the top court bench. Various miscellaneous applications were also submitted by different affected parties, including the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM), seeking modifications of the judgment dated 26.04.2023.
According to the latest report by Live Law, the Attorney General of India, representing NCISM, initially expressed concerns about certain remarks in the judgments. Justice Abhay S Oka stated, “If we grant relief, it will be contrary to the judgment which you have attached. Prudence demands that we should not hear this until the reconsideration decision is taken.” Therefore, the bench questioned the filing of the reconsideration. Responding to this, the Attorney General clarified that the institution had not filed the reconsideration as it was not a party to the main proceedings.
The bench suggested, “Ultimately it comes down to reconsideration. We will just say that it will be listed after hearing the reconsideration. You can apply to club this petition there.” Responding to this, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the decision was final and reconsideration was not contemplated, and they were proceeding with the revision request based on three points.
Justice Abhay S Oka clarified, “On the basis of principles, we will not modify whatever can be done in the review.” When the senior advocate informed the bench that a review was filed, Justice Oka inquired about the parties involved. Responding to this, the advocate stated, “Those 56 persons are Ayurvedic doctors who were in service, they have retired in 2008.”
The bench then questioned, “Was he before the court when the judgment was pronounced?” When the lawyer confirmed, the top court bench expressed concern over his eligibility to apply for amendment and observed, “That is the problem. How can they apply for amendment? Someone who wasn’t there, we can understand.”
At this point, the senior advocate suggested to the bench that the matter be kept for reconsideration. Subsequently, the counsel for the Medical Officers Association, Mr. SP Singh, sought to address the concerns in the decision. Responding to this, the bench questioned, “What you want is a review under the guise of Article 32 petition, then we will reject it.” Thereafter, the lawyer offered to withdraw the application when the review petition was heard. However, Justice Oka insisted, “No, it cannot be conditional.” Following this, the lawyer requested the bench to withdraw the plea.
