The Supreme Court has decided to involve a larger bench to definitively address whether doctors practicing AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy) and allopathy should have similar service conditions, with a focus on retirement age. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted the need for a clear ruling due to differing previous court decisions on this matter. This comes as the court reviews petitions requesting equal service conditions for practitioners of both modern and traditional medicine.
The court acknowledged an “area of ambiguity” concerning service conditions, retirement age, and pay scales for doctors in different medical streams, deeming an authoritative judgment essential. The case was flagged for referral to a larger bench for administrative consideration by the Chief Justice.
The current judicial divergence stems from two key past rulings: NDMC vs Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (2021) and State of Gujarat vs Dr. P.A. Bhatt (2023). In the Sharma case, the court had suggested that AYUSH and allopathy doctors could not be differentiated regarding retirement age, as both serve patients equally. This followed a government decision to raise the retirement age for AYUSH doctors to 65, aligning them with Central Health Scheme (CHS) officers, though state policies varied.
Conversely, the Bhatt ruling established a distinction, asserting that differences in qualifications, training, and job roles justified separate pay scales and service conditions. The court highlighted that allopathy doctors handle emergencies, trauma care, and complex surgeries—tasks not typically performed by traditional medicine practitioners—thus deeming the classification based on educational qualifications constitutional.
The bench presiding over the current case observed that while both AYUSH and allopathy doctors contribute to public health, they cannot be treated as identical in every aspect. They noted that differences in educational curricula, diagnostic methods, treatment philosophies, and medications distinguish allopathy practitioners, justifying differential service conditions.
However, the court also emphasized that parity should be determined by the “identity of functions, similarity in work carried out, and comparable duties assigned,” rather than solely by the medical system practiced.
Pending the larger bench’s decision, the Supreme Court has permitted states and authorities to continue employing AYUSH practitioners beyond their current retirement age, up to the retirement age of allopathy doctors. However, these practitioners will receive only half their pay and allowances, with adjustments to be made based on the final ruling.
The court recognized that extending the retirement age for allopathy doctors was driven by public interest and a shortage of experienced practitioners in modern medicine. It noted that this level of concern is not as pronounced for indigenous medicine systems, particularly given that critical life-saving interventions are not typically performed by AYUSH practitioners.
Concluding, the bench stressed that treating unequals as equals is legally impermissible and that a definitive ruling from a larger bench is necessary to provide clarity across all states and medical services.