Supreme Court Stands Firm: Ayurvedic Doctors Not Equal to Allopathic Doctors
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its stance that Ayurvedic or AYUSH doctors cannot claim parity with their allopathic counterparts. The court’s decision, delivered while dismissing a special leave petition, stems from a recognition of the fundamental differences in academic qualifications and the nature of training between the two medical systems.
Qualitative Distinctions Underpin the Ruling
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, stated, “We are satisfied on facts that the Ayurvedic or AYUSH doctors serving in the State of Kerala, having regard to the qualitative distinction in the academic qualifications and the standard of imparting respective degree courses, cannot seek parity with medical doctors.”
This decision builds upon previous Supreme Court judgments that have consistently upheld the distinct roles and training pathways of allopathic and AYUSH practitioners.
Precedence Supports the Distinction
The court cited its earlier ruling in State of Gujarat And Ors. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt And Ors., which definitively stated that allopathic doctors and practitioners of indigenous medicine perform fundamentally different types of work and, therefore, are not entitled to equal pay.
Further strengthening its position, the court also referenced the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others case. This case involved an employee of the CCRAS, Ministry of AYUSH, who sought parity in superannuation age with AYUSH doctors based on his experience treating OPD and IPD patients. The court ultimately ruled against his claim, emphasizing the lack of equivalence in the nature of work performed.
Implications and Significance
This recent ruling serves as a clear reminder of the distinct roles and responsibilities within the medical field. While both allopathic and AYUSH systems contribute to healthcare, their differing philosophies, training methodologies, and scopes of practice lead to a natural divergence in professional standing.
What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of integrating Ayurvedic and allopathic practices in India’s healthcare system?
**Interviewer:** Joining us today is Dr. Amit Sharma, a prominent Ayurvedic practitioner, to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling regarding parity between Ayurvedic and allopathic doctors. Dr. Sharma, what are your thoughts on this decision and its implications for the future of Ayurvedic medicine in India?
**Dr. Sharma:**
The Supreme Court’s ruling, while understandable given the current legal framework, overlooks the growing recognition and acceptance of Ayurveda as a thorough healthcare system. We beleive this decision sets a precedent that could hinder the integration and collaboration between these two vital medical traditions. What are your thoughts on this? Do you believe the court’s decision stifles progress in the field of holistic medicine or is it a necessary distinction to maintain professional standards?