Baharul Islam & Ors. vs. The Indian Medical Association & Ors.
Background
In 2004, the Assam Legislature passed a law (the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004) to create a diploma course training "Rural Health Practitioners" who could practice basic allopathic medicine in Assam's rural areas, where qualified doctors are scarce. Several hundred students, including the appellants, enrolled in and completed this diploma at the Jorhat Medical Institute. The Indian Medical Association challenged the Assam law in the Gauhati High Court, arguing that medical education standards are exclusively a Union subject already occupied by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the High Court struck the Assam law down in 2014. Assam then passed a fresh law in 2015 (the Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act) to preserve the practicing rights of those already-qualified diploma holders, and that 2015 law was also challenged before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that education is a subject on which both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws (Concurrent List, Entry 25), but this power is subject to Parliament's exclusive power to set standards for higher/technical education (Union List, Entry 66). Since the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 sets national standards for allopathic medical education, Assam's 2004 Act (which created a parallel, lower qualification allowing people to practice allopathic medicine) directly conflicted with that central law and was beyond the State's legislative competence; the Court therefore upheld the High Court's decision striking down the 2004 Act, though on the different legal ground of lack of legislative competence rather than "repugnancy" under Article 254. However, the Court upheld the 2015 Act as valid, because it did not recreate the diploma course but only preserved the practicing status of the diploma-holders who already existed, and it did not deal with allopathic medical education standards in a way that conflicted with the central law. The Court also emphasized the State's constitutional duty (Article 47) to ensure rural citizens get equitable access to healthcare.
Lesson Learnt
A State law that tries to set its own standards or qualifications in a field (like allopathic medical education) that Parliament has already comprehensively regulated will be struck down for lack of legislative competence, even if the State's goal (better rural healthcare access) is legitimate, but a State can still validly legislate to protect the settled rights/status of people who already qualified under an earlier, later-invalidated scheme.