SC refers to larger bench issue of parity between AYUSH, allopathic doctors

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the crucial question of whether doctors practising Ayurveda, Unani, homoeopathy, and other indigenous medical systems under AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and homoeopathy) can be treated on par with allopathic doctors in terms of service conditions, retirement age, and pay scales.

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which had reserved its verdict in May, delivered the order on 17 October, noting "divergence of opinion" among previous rulings.

“We are of the opinion that there should be an authoritative pronouncement on the issue and hence refer the matter to a larger bench,” the order stated.

The case stems from a challenge by government AYUSH doctors in Rajasthan who alleged discrimination after the state raised the retirement age for allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 years in 2016 but excluded those from indigenous systems.

The Rajasthan High Court had sided with the AYUSH doctors, declaring the difference in retirement age as "violative of Article 14" of the Constitution and ordering reinstatement of those who retired after 31 March 2016. The state government, however, appealed the verdict, urging the Supreme Court to stay the order.

During hearings, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for Rajasthan, argued that the extension of service age for allopathic doctors was necessitated by an acute shortage of practitioners providing critical and emergency care — a condition that did not exist within AYUSH disciplines.

Petitioners, represented by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya and others, contended that AYUSH doctors "perform the same healing function" and contribute equally to public health services, making the classification unreasonable.

The bench observed that while modern medicine practitioners often handle life-saving and surgical procedures, indigenous systems typically do not, warranting a detailed constitutional examination.

“The dearth of medical practitioners as occurring in allopathy does not exist in the indigenous systems of medicine,” the bench noted, adding that service parity should be determined on identifiable functional grounds.

Pending the larger bench’s decision, the court has allowed state governments to extend AYUSH doctors’ service up to the same retirement age as allopathic doctors on an interim basis — but with only half their regular pay and allowances.

If the larger bench later rules in their favour, these doctors will be entitled to full salary arrears for the extended period; if not, the interim payments will be adjusted against pension entitlements.

The matter, involving at least 31 petitions from various states, will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an expanded bench to deliver a precedent-setting judgment on the future service rights of India’s indigenous medicine practitioners.

With PTI inputs