2019 (8) TMI 1907 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of the State Government - Violation of Fundamental Rights - Contract of Personal Service - Restraint on Profession - Compulsory bonds to be executed for admission to post-graduate medical courses and super speciality courses - seeking quashing the compulsory bond conditions, as imposed in the super speciality courses by the States of Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal respectively - direction sought for returning the original mark-sheets, certificates and other documents retained by the respective State authorities after the completion of the concerned speciality courses. Jurisdiction of the State Government - HELD THAT - Entry 66 of List I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution refers to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. Entry 25 of List III of the 7th Schedule deals with education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Legislations can be made by the State Legislature relating to medical education subject to the legislation made by the Parliament. The Medical Council of India Act governs the field of medical education in this country. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Medical Council of India Act touching upon the subject matter of compulsory bonds. Therefore, the States are free to legislate on the subject matter of medical bonds. Executive authority of the State Government is co-extensive with that of the legislative power of the State Legislature - The Notifications issued by the State Governments imposing a condition of execution of compulsory bonds at the time of admission to postgraduate courses and super Speciality courses cannot be said to be vitiated due to lack of authority or competence. The field of bonds requiring compulsory employment is not covered by any Central Legislation - the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants that the States lacked competence to issue the notifications as the field is occupied are rejected. Violation of Fundamental Rights - HELD THAT - The right to life guaranteed by Article 21 means right to life with human dignity. Communitarian dignity has been recognised by this Court. While balancing communitarian dignity vis- -vis the dignity of private individuals, the scales must tilt in favour of communitarian dignity. The laudable objective with which the State Governments have introduced compulsory service bonds is to protect the fundamental right of the deprived sections of the society guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the Appellants that their rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated is rejected. Contract of Personal Service - HELD THAT - Specific performance of contract for personal service is not permissible under the Specific Relief Act, therefore, there cannot be a decree for specific performance of a contract of personal nature. None of the State Governments have made an attempt to enforce the contracts entered into by them with the Appellants through the service bonds - the submission of Mr. Ahmadi that the compulsory bonds fall foul of the Specific Relief Act not agreed upon. Restraint on Profession - HELD THAT - The conditions of compulsory bonds for admission to post-graduate and super-Speciality courses in government medical colleges are not in violation of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Writ Petitions and the Appeals deserve to be dismissed. Consequently, all the Doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions contained therein - petition and appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the State Government.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights.
3. Contract of Personal Service.
4. Restraint on Profession.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Jurisdiction of the State Government:

The Supreme Court examined whether the State Governments had the authority to impose compulsory bonds for postgraduate and super speciality medical courses. Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution were considered, indicating that while the Medical Council of India Act governs medical education, it does not address compulsory bonds. Consequently, the States are free to legislate on this subject. The Court concluded that the States have the competence to issue executive orders under Article 162 of the Constitution on matters over which the State legislature has the power to legislate. Thus, the Notifications issued by the State Governments imposing compulsory bonds were not vitiated due to lack of authority or competence.

II. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

Article 14:

A. Arbitrariness: The Appellants argued that the introduction of compulsory bonds was arbitrary. However, the Court found that the decision was based on relevant material, including the need to provide healthcare and the scarcity of super specialists. The policy decision to utilize the services of doctors who benefited from government assistance was not deemed arbitrary.

B. Reasonableness: The Court acknowledged the reasonableness of the compulsory bonds but directed that the period of compulsory service and the exit clause should be reasonable. The Court suggested a compulsory service period of two years, with a penalty of Rs. 20 Lakhs for default.

Article 19:

The Appellants contended that the compulsory bonds violated their right to carry on their profession under Article 19(1)(g). The Court held that conditions imposed for admission to a medical college do not directly violate the right to carry on a profession. The Appellants had accepted the admissions and executed the compulsory bonds without protest, making the conditions part of a composite package. Thus, the Court upheld the finding of the Division Bench that the Notifications did not violate Article 19(1)(g).

Article 21:

The Appellants argued that compulsory bonds curtailed their liberty and affected their right to life. The Court emphasized the State's obligation to safeguard the right to life and provide healthcare. The policy decision to ensure specialist healthcare for the deprived sections of society was aimed at protecting the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21. The Court concluded that the compulsory bonds did not violate the Appellants' rights under Article 21.

Article 23:

The Appellants claimed that the bonds amounted to 'forced labour' in violation of Article 23 (1). The Court referred to Article 23 (2), which allows the State to impose compulsory service for public purposes. The service rendered by the Appellants in Government hospitals did not constitute 'forced labour,' especially since they had taken an informed decision to avail subsidized education.

III. Contract of Personal Service:

The Court addressed the argument that the compulsory bonds constituted contracts of personal service, which are not enforceable under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The State Governments did not intend to enforce the contracts through the courts. The Court reiterated that specific performance of contracts of personal service is not permissible and found no fault with the compulsory bonds under the Specific Relief Act.

IV. Restraint on Profession:

The Appellants argued that the compulsory bonds placed a restraint on their profession, contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court agreed with the Calcutta High Court's finding that the bonds did not amount to a restraint on professional activity. The bonds were part of a package for admission to government medical colleges and were reasonable. The Court concluded that the bonds did not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and Appeals, holding that the Doctors who executed compulsory bonds are bound by the conditions therein. The Court suggested that the Union of India and the Medical Council of India take steps to establish a uniform policy regarding compulsory service for doctors trained in government institutions.