On January 24, a division of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Krishna Murari and B.V. Nagarathna, invalidated the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, which gave diploma holders in medicine and rural health care the authority to treat some common illnesses, carry out minor procedures, and prescribe some medications. A division bench upheld a Gauhati High Court decision that declared the Act unconstitutional “The Assam Act, which seeks to regulate such aspects of medical education [that are within the exclusive domain of the Parliament], is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the state legislature lacks competence.”

The judgement observed that the Assam Act, passed in response to List III, Entry 25, attempted to regulate both the profession of a successful candidate as well as the introduction of a new force in the field of medical education. The regulating body established by the act was given the authority to specify the minimum requirements for the programme, its duration in the field of contemporary medicine, its curriculum, its test, and other relevant information. The challenged act also gave the state government the power to approve the construction of a medical institute. The bench objected to the state government's attempt to infringe on the exclusive territory of the Parliament, citing Entry 66 of the Union List. “It is essential that uniform standards are laid down by the Parliament which are adhered to by institutions and medical colleges across the country. To this end, Entry 66 has been formulated with the objective of maintaining uniform standards in research, higher education, and technical education. Hence, state legislatures lack legislative competence in the areas of prescription of minimum standards for medical education, authority to recognise or derecognise an institution, et cetera.”

A special leave appeal against the Gauhati High Court's invalidation of the statute on the grounds that it violated the 1956 Indian Medical Council Act was being heard by the division bench. According to the High Court's interpretation of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, the State Government was required to obtain authorization from the Central Government before launching the aforementioned diploma programme. As a result, the High Court came to the conclusion that the aforementioned act would be unlawful because neither the Central Government nor the President had given their consent.

Case Title: Baharul Islam and Ors. v. Indian Medical Association and Ors. 
Citation: SLP(C) No. 32592-32593/2015

Appearance of the Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Harin P Raval, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR
 Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv.
 Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv.
 Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv.
 Mr. Md Sharuk Ali, Adv.
 Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv.
 Ms. Shreya, Adv.
 Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv.
 Mr. Aditya Pathak, Adv.

 Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Deep Prabhu, Adv.
Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv.
 Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
 Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR

 Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
 Mr. Arnav Singh Deo, Adv.
 Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.

 Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR
 Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv.
 Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv.
 Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG
Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Nakul Chengappa, Adv.
Mr. Sharathj Nambiar, ADv.
Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anuj S. Udupa, ADv.
Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., ADv.
Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv.
 Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR

 Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, AOR
Mr. V.K. Kanna, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Ravish Kumar Goyal, Adv.