A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether doctors practising indigenous systems of medicine like ayurveda, unani and siddha can be equated with allopathic doctors for the grant of similar service conditions like retirement age and pay scales in government organisations.

The court noted that allopathic doctors offer critical, life-saving services.

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran referred to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Gujarat & Ors vs Dr P.A. Bhatt & Ors (2023) wherein it was held that classification of service conditions based on educational qualifications cannot be considered as unconstitutional or discriminatory.

"The claim for parity will have to be decided finally, looking at the qualification acquired, the treatment practices, the functions, work and duties and so on.

"As has been noticed in Dr P.A. Bhatt…, it is the MBBS doctors, the allopathy practitioners, who are dealing with critical care, immediate lifesaving measures, invasive procedures including surgeries and even postmortem, none of which can be carried out by any of the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine.

"The contention of the states which have brought in two different retirement ages, is also that of public good and the concern expressed is of dearth of sufficient allopathy doctors," the apex court said.

The court was dealing with multiple special leave petitions that concerned the applicability of different service conditions for allopathic doctors and those practising the indigenous streams. Different high courts have taken different views on the matter. In many states allopathy doctors retire at 65 whereas those practising the indigenous medicines retire at 60. Besides, there are also pay anomalies between the two streams.

The Supreme Court cited State of Gujarat vs Dr P.A. Bhatt to say it is common knowledge that the footfall at allopathy institutions are far more than those offering indigenous systems of medicine. The curriculum leading to the different qualifications, the dissimilar diagnostic methods, contrasting treatment philosophies and the disparate composition of medicines administered sets the allopathy doctors apart, the court noted.

"Further, casualty, critical care, trauma management and the emergency interventional procedures are dealt with by allopathy doctors and not by AYUSH doctors. These aspects, according to us, puts the former in a different class altogether, who can be classified differently for service conditions. This has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, ie, the sufficiency of qualified and experienced MBBS doctors with better pay scales and longer service, both.

"The dearth of medical practitioners as occurring in allopathy does not exist in the indigenous systems of medicine especially when critical life-saving therapeutic, interventional and surgical care is not carried out by the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine,” the bench said.

However, it noted that there is divergence of opinion in so far as whether the MBBS physicians and doctors practising indigenous systems of medicine can be treated equally for the purpose of service conditions, “which on principle, it is trite cannot result in treatment of unequals as equals".

Accordingly, the court said: “We are of the opinion that there should be an authoritative pronouncement on the issue and we hence refer the matter to a larger bench.”