On Monday, the Supreme Court sought the answer of the Central government on a petition done by Indian Medical Association (IMA) that had challenged the changes which were introduced to Ayurveda regulations in 2020. In this amendment, the Post Graduate Ayurveda scholars were allowed to perform modern surgical procedures.

The IMA challenged the changes of Indian Medicine Central Council Regulations 2016 as revised by the Indian Medicine Central Council (for Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Amendment Regulations 2020. The Regulations are allowed to conduct surgeries by the Ayurvedic doctors who have done Shalakya Tantra (ENT issues) and Post-Graduation in Shalya Tantra (surgery).

The plea states that the questioned Regulations of allowing to operate, would create a mess in the country. Ignorant and unfortunate patients will be at the mercy of doctors who do not have the knowledge as well as experience or training in performing these complicated modern surgical procedures.  It is certain that it will cause a huge and serious damage to the medical health and treatment that is being provided to the patients in the country.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who represented the Central government has submitted the concerns of the petitioner was "over pitched" and Centre will submit a response in this case.

IMA has opposed that parliament had specifically included “Surgery” in the definition of “medicine” in the Indian Medical Council 1956 Act (substituted now by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019) that governs allopathy.

However, it has specifically omitted “Surgery” from the definition of “Indian Medicine” under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 that governs Ayurveda. The plea also stated that this is for the reason that surgery is and has always been a part of Modern Medicine and has never been a part of Indian Medicine.

IMA has submitted that Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), has disobeyed the boundaries of the 1970 enactment under which it was created, and impermissibly has entered into the domain of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

The petitioner has opposed stating that regulations are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, resulting in serious insult and prejudice to the constitutional and fundamental Rights of the citizens of this country to receive correct and effective medical care and treatment. It can also cause serious prejudice to the rights of millions of doctors in the country who have worked hard and spent years of their life undergoing training for getting adequate exposure.

Source: Bar and Bench