HC Rejects Plea On Integrated Medicine

Chennai, 20 June 2020:

The Madras High Court has refused to direct the State government to amend Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulations) Rules of 2018 and permit registration of even those clinical establishments where integrated medicine could be practised by combining any one of the systems of Indian medicine with allopathy.

A Bench of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed a writ petition filed by K.M. Senthamizhselvan, State president of AYUSH Medical Welfare Association, who had sought a direction to amend the rules and also to include the association as a member of State and district-level committees.

The petitioner claimed that the practitioners of ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, unani, siddha and homeopathy were also entitled to practice integrated medicine by virtue of their qualifications. However, since the 2018 rules do not provide for registering clinical establishments for practice of integrated medicine, he wanted the rules to be amended.

Opposing the plea, State Government Pleader V. Jayaprakash Narayan told the court that a medical practitioner was entitled to practice either Indian system of medicine or allopathy and not both. He said, the 2018 rules prescribe minimum requirements for registration of clinical establishments and only those which comply with the rules could be registered.

After recording his submission, the judges pointed out that the writ petitioner had not challenged the validity of the 2018 rules on the ground that they were contrary to the provisions of the parent legislation - the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulations) Act of 1997. He had only sought a direction to the executive to amend the statutory rules.

The statutory rules, which were in the nature of a subordinate legislation, could not be directed to be amended through issuance of a writ of mandamus (direction) by the court. Such a writ could be issued only if the executive had failed to perform any of their public or statutory duties despite being called upon to do so, the Bench pointed out.

No court could compel the State to exercise its legislative function in a particular manner, the judges said and held that the present writ petition was not maintainable. The Hindu