| Headnote |
Constitution of India: Art.162; Seventh Schedule, List I, Entries 63 to 66; List III Entry 25 – Jurisdiction of the State Government – Notification issued by State Government for compulsory execution of bond by the candidates at the time of admission to post-graduate courses and super speciality courses providing that they shall serve the State Government for certain stipulated period on successful completion of courses failing which they would be liable to recompense the State Government – Competence of State Government to issue such notification – Held: Entry 66 of List I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution refers to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions – Entry 25 of List III of the 7th Schedule deals with education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I – Legislations can be made by the State Legislature relating to medical education subject to the legislation made by the Parliament – The Medical Council of India Act governs the field of medical education in this country – Admittedly, there is no provision in the Medical Council of India Act touching upon the subject matter of compulsory bonds – Therefore, the States are free to legislate on the subject matter of medical bonds – Executive authority of the State Government is coextensive with that of the legislative power of the State Legislature – Even in the absence of any legislation, the State Government has the competence to issue executive orders under Art.162 on matters over which the State legislature has the power to legislate – Thus, Notifications issued by the State Governments imposing a condition of execution of compulsory bonds at the time of admission to postgraduate courses and super speciality courses cannot be said to be vitiated due to lack of authority or competence – Medical Council of India Act. Constitution of India: Art.14 – Notification issued by State Government for compulsory execution of bond at the time of admission of candidates to post-graduate courses and super specialty courses providing that they shall serve the State Government for certain stipulated period on successful completion of courses failing which they will be liable to recompense the State Government – Whether violated fundamental rights and is arbitrary – Held: Running medical colleges with post-graduate and super speciality courses requires huge infrastructure – However, the amount of fees charged from the students is meagre in comparison to the private medical colleges – The doctors are to paid reasonable stipend – Government hospitals run by the State are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life – Failure on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution – Consequently, a policy decision taken by the State Governments to utilize the services of doctors who were beneficiaries of Government assistance to complete their education cannot be termed arbitrary. Constitution of India: Art.14 – Notifications issued by the State Governments imposing a condition of compulsory service and a default clause – Reasonableness of – Held: Notifications imposing a condition of compulsory service and a default clause are per se not unreasonable – However, the period of compulsory service and the exit should be reasonable – State Governments and Armed Forces Medical College are directed to consider imposing the condition of compulsory service period of two years in default of which the Doctors would recompense the Government by paying Rs. 20 Lakhs. Constitution of India: Arts.19(1)(g), 19(6) – Right to life and liberty – Right to take decisions relating to profession – According to the Appellants, the right to carry on their profession guaranteed by Art.19(1)(g) is violated by the compulsory bonds and that any restriction on their right to carry on their profession by the State Government can be made only by a “law” as per Art. 19(6) of the Constitution – Held: The compulsory bond executed by the Appellants is at the time of their admissions into post-graduate and super speciality courses – Conditions imposed for admission to a medical college will not directly violate the right of an individual to carry on his profession – The right to carry on the profession would start on the completion of the course – At the outset, there is no doubt that no right inheres in an individual to receive higher education – Violation of a right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) does not arise in a case pertaining to admission to a college – The condition that is imposed has a connection with the professional activity of a doctor on completion of the course – However, the Appellants have, without any protest, accepted the admissions and executed the compulsory bonds – Appellants have not succeeded in their attempt of assailing the Notifications for being violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Constitution of India: Arts.21, 47 – Right to life – Art.21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person – Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance – The Government hospitals run by the State and the Medical Officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life – In a welfare State, it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health – Art.47 reiterates the constitutional obligation imposed on the State to improve public health. Constitution of India: Art.21 – Right to live with dignity – Right to life enshrined in Art.21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence – It means something much more than just physical survival – The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter, and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings – Dignity is the core which unites the fundamental rights because the fundamental rights seek to achieve for each individual the dignity of existence – The State’s obligations are not satisfied solely by refraining from imposing limitations on the right to human dignity – State must also take action to protect human dignity and to facilitate its realization – The constitutional right to dignity is intended to ensure human beings’ political and civil liberties as well as their social and economic freedoms. Constitution of India: Art.23 – Whether the conditions of the bond per se amount to ‘forced labour’ and thus violative of Art.23(1) – Appellants who are required to work for a short period on a decent stipend cannot complain that they are made to perform ‘forced labour’, especially after they took an informed decision to avail the benefits of admission in government medical colleges and received subsidized education – By no means, the service rendered by the Appellants in Government hospitals would fall under the expression of ‘forced labour’ – Art.23(2) enables the State Governments to require the Appellants to do compulsory service in the Government hospitals which is undoubtedly for the benefit of the public. Constitution of India: Art.47 – Right to health is integral to the right to life – Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities – Art.47 reiterates the constitutional obligation imposed on the State to improve public health – It is for the State to secure health to its citizens as its primary duty – No doubt, the Government is rendering this obligation by opening Government hospitals and health centers, but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible, to reduce the queue of waiting lists, and it has to provide all facilities to employ best of talents and tone up its administration to give effective contribution, which is also the duty of the Government – The immediate need of the deprived sections of the society to have proper health care is the reason behind the Government policy of imposing a condition of compulsory service and a default clause – The objective of the policy is to ensure that specialist health care is extended to the have-nots also – The right that is claimed by the Appellants is to make an individual choice to carry on their profession which might be hindered by the policy decision of the Government – On the other hand, the basic idea behind the Government’s decision is larger public interest – Right to life guaranteed by Art.21 means right to life with human dignity – While balancing communitarian dignity vis-à-vis the dignity of private individuals, the scales must tilt in favour of communitarian dignity – The laudable objective with which the State Governments have introduced compulsory service bonds is to protect the fundamental right of the deprived sections of the society guaranteed to them under Art.21 – The contention of the Appellants that their rights guaranteed under Art.21 have been violated is rejected. Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.14 – Contract of Personal Service – Prohibition of specific performance of contract for personal service – Held: s.14 of the Specific Relief Act prohibits the enforcement of contracts of personal service – It is trite law that Courts do not ordinarily enforce performance of contracts of personal character, such as a contract of employment – None of the State Governments made an attempt to enforce the contracts entered into by them with the appellants through the service bonds – Constitution of India. Contract Act, 1872: s.27 – Restraint on Profession – Plea of the Appellants that compulsory bonds placed a restraint on their profession and thus, would be contrary to s.27 of the Contract Act – Held: A contract entered into by Appellants to serve the government for a few years under reasonable terms cannot be described as one in restraint of trade – The conditions of compulsory bonds for admission to post-graduate and super-Speciality courses in government medical colleges are not in violation of s.27 of the Contract Act – All the Doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein – Taking note of the fact that certain State Governments have rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds to be executed by the Appellants and the felt need of uniformity in the matter pertaining to the compulsory bonds, suitable steps should be taken by the Union of India and the Medical Council of India to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory service to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in government institutions – Constitution of India. |
