Ham -Ak Rural Development Foundation Vs National Commission for Indian System of Medicine and 11 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010083392024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:16990

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2226/2024

¶6

HAM -AK RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RESIDENT OF HAM-AK MAHOL, VILL AND P.O. HATIZUZUA, P.S. JAJORI, DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM), PIN- 782122

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE AND 11 ORS (MINISTRY OF AYUSH, GOVT. OF INDIA), PLOT NO. T-19, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK_IV, DHANWANTARI BHAWAN, ROAD NO. 66, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI-110026, DELHI, INDIA.

¶9

2:NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA) POCKET-14 SECTOR-8 DWARKA PHASE-1 NEW DELHI- 110002

¶10

3:DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA) AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG KOTLA ROAD TEMPLE LANE OPP. MATA SUNDARI COLLEGE FOR WOMEN NEW DELHI- 110002

¶11

4:INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL (MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA) 8TH FLOOR NBCC CENTER PLOT NO.2 COMMUNITY CENTER

¶12

Page No.# 2/8

¶13

OKHLA PHASE-I NEW DELHI- 110002 5:VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA (VCI) MINISTRY OF FISHERIES ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING A-WING 2ND FLOOR AUGUST KRANTI BHAWAN BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI- 110066 6:ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781022 7:SRIMANTA SANKARDEVA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR NARKASUR HILL TOP BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781032 8:ASSAM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE RESIGTRAR TETELIA ROAD NEAR ASSAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE JALUKBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781013 9:REGISTRAR ASSAM NURSES MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITOR COUNCIL SIX MILE KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022 ASSAM 10:THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AYUSH GOVT. OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY AYUSH BHAWAN B BLOCK GPO COMPLEX INA NEW DELHI- 110023

¶14

Page No.# 3/8

¶15

11:THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY NIRMAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110011

¶16

12:THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FISHERIES ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY KRISHI BHAWAN RAFI AHMED KIDWAI MARG RAJPATH AREA CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI- 11000

¶17

For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. A. C. Buragohain, Sr. Advocate Mrs. I. Talumi, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. C. Keyal, Advocate

¶19

Ms. R. Hussain, Advocate Ms. A. Gayan, Advocate Mr. M. Jain, Advocate (through VC)

¶20

– B E F O R E –

¶21

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶22

09.12.2025

¶23

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶24

We have heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Keyal, Mr. R. Hussain, Ms. A. Gayan and Mr. M. Jain, learned Advocates for the respondents.

¶25

The petitioner, HAM-AK, a Rural Development Foundation registered under the Societies Registration Act, has, in the past, been working in the field of education and has established several schools and colleges. The society further wants to develop Ayurvedic, Medical, Dental, Nursing and

¶26

Page No.# 4/8

¶27

Veterinary Colleges but is aggrieved by the requirement under the Central Act and Regulations of obtaining Essentiality Certificate (hereinafter referred to as “EC”) from the State Government concerned for setting up of such institutions.

¶28

The contention of the petitioner is that the regulatory regime under the various Central Acts and Regulations framed by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, National Medical Commission, Dental Commission of India, Indian Nursing Council, Veterinary Council of India, or the Pharmacy Council of India, requires EC from the concerned State Government for establishment of such institutions. This compels the petitioner to approach the State Government, despite the subject of education in higher and technical fields falling within Entry 66 of the List 1 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

It is argued that the requirement of EC is wholly unnecessary, arbitrary and violates the rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶30

The respondents, on the other hand, contend that issuance of EC is not an independent exercise of legislative competence, but a ministerial and administrative role delegated to the State by the Central statutory scheme and the State’s input would be essential to assess local health needs, availability of infrastructure and public interest with respect to establishment of such institutions.

¶31

The question raised by the petitioner, therefore, is whether the statutory requirement of obtaining an EC from the State Government for establishing new colleges under the Central Regulation framed under

¶32

Page No.# 5/8

¶33

Entry 66 of List 1 is unconstitutional, or violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?

¶34

The Parliament has exclusive power to legislate on “co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education” under Entry 66 of List 1. However, the entries relating to public health, hospitals, land and local administration fall within List 2 (State List).

¶35

The Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 104 , has held that while determination of academic standards lie exclusively with the Union, the State may regulate matters concerning local conditions, land, infrastructure and public health, provided they do not conflict with Central Legislation.

¶36

In the afore-noted case, it has conclusively been held that the expression “co-ordination”, used in Entry 66 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonization with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make “coordination” either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention.

¶37

It may be noted here that the requirement of EC is not a creation of

¶38

Page No.# 6/8

¶39

State law. It is imposed by Regulations framed by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, National Medical Commission, Dental Commission of India, Indian Nursing Council, Veterinary Council of India, etc. Since the Parliament itself mandates the State’s involvement, the requirement of obtaining EC from the concerned State, in this case, the State of Assam, cannot be said to be vailative of any provision of the Constitution of India.

¶40

In Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka & Others, (1998) 6 SCC 131 , it has been held that the State may assess local needs and infrastructure availability without infringing the Union’s domain over the standards.

¶41

Had the requirement of EC from the concerned State been a State imposed requirement, it would have been necessary for us to assess whether there was any encroachment in the legislative field. The requirement of obtaining EC herein is under Central statutory regime and there is no attempt of the State to add its own NOC requirement.

¶42

It needs no repetition that the in the Constitution Bench judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 4981 and P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 537 , it is categorically held that adopting such regulatory measures to safeguard the educational standards and public interest is permissible.

¶43

Very recently, in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353 , the Supreme Court has upheld the extensive State involvement in institutional regulation, recognizing that public health is State’s responsibility.

¶44

Page No.# 7/8

¶45

The requirement of EC, thus, is a regulatory measure and cannot be deemed to be a restriction on the right to establish an institution. This requirement applies uniformly to all applicants. Thus, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as no arbitrariness can be attributed to such regulation. It serves as a nexus with public health infrastructure, planning and feasibility.

¶46

There is yet another aspect of the matter, which requires consideration. When the Parliament authorizes a State to perform a function like grant of EC, such exercise is constitutionally valid under Article 246 of the Constitution of India. A State can be assigned administrative functions by the Central Legislation without violating the federal structure.

¶47

The EC requirement being rooted in Central Law and not being an independent State imposed barrier, does not violate Article 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The Central scheme, in fact, carefully balances the Union’s control over educational standards and the State’s responsibility towards public health and local infrastructure.

¶48

We, therefore, are of the considered view that the challenge to the EC requirement under the Central Government regime is unsustainable.

¶49

We thus close this petition but with an observation that if the petitioner’s application for EC is pending, or is filed, the State Government shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, within a specified period and communicate the outcome to the petitioner. In that case, any decision taken by the State shall be open to challenge in accordance with law.

¶50

Page No.# 8/8

¶51

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Comparing Assistant

Ham -Ak Rural Development Foundation v. National Commission for Indian System of Medicine and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ham -Ak Rural Development Foundation v. National Commission for Indian System of Medicine and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramendra Deka and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Union of India and 9 Ors. Vs Santosh Kumar

Dipankar Chanda and 35 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Airports Authority India and 5 Ors. Vs Praveen vs and Anr.

M/S Mcleod Russel India Limited Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Anu Devi Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.