Introduction:
The Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) proposed nationwide 24-hour strike against the Maharashtra Government’s decision to permit Homeopathy practitioners to register with the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC). A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad expressed serious concern over the impact of medical strikes on public health, observing that doctors cannot resort to strikes under any circumstances when patient lives are at stake.
The issue arose after the IMA announced a nationwide protest opposing the State Government’s policy allowing eligible Homeopathy practitioners to register with the MMC. The High Court considered the matter primarily from the perspective of safeguarding the lives and health of citizens, while clarifying that the legality of the Government’s decision itself was already pending before another coordinate Bench.
Arguments of the Parties:
Senior Advocate Suresh Kamdar, appearing for the IMA, informed the Court that the association had withdrawn its proposed strike but continued to oppose the State Government’s decision on merits. He argued that MBBS doctors undergo extensive medical education and training, whereas Homeopathy practitioners, after undergoing a limited bridge course, should not be permitted to practice on par with allopathic doctors. According to the IMA, such a policy could compromise the quality of healthcare and affect patient safety.
The State Government, represented by Advocate General Milind Sathe and Chief Government Pleader Neha Bhide, submitted that a Government Resolution dated August 3 had already constituted a special committee to frame Standard Operating Procedures regarding the implementation of the policy. The State further contended that the decision was taken to address the shortage of qualified medical practitioners, particularly in rural areas where MBBS doctors are often unwilling to serve. It was argued that, until the pending litigation challenging the policy is decided, Homeopathy practitioners should be permitted to register with the MMC since no interim stay had been granted against the Government’s decision.
The Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors (MARD) also informed the Court that while it intended to continue its protest, emergency medical services would not be disrupted.
Court’s Judgment:
The Bombay High Court made it unequivocally clear that doctors cannot justify going on strike when such action has the potential to endanger human life. The Bench repeatedly observed that irrespective of the legitimacy of their grievances, medical professionals owe a higher duty to society because their profession directly concerns the preservation of life.
The Court orally remarked that even if doctors ultimately succeed in challenging the Government’s policy before a court of law, the loss of lives during the period of the strike would be irreversible. Stressing the ethical obligations attached to the medical profession, the Bench observed that no subsequent legal victory could compensate for a patient’s death caused by denial of timely medical treatment.
While considering the State’s justification for permitting Homeopathy practitioners to register with the MMC, the Bench expressed reservations regarding the rationale behind allowing practitioners with comparatively limited training to perform functions similar to MBBS doctors. The Court illustrated its concern by comparing such an approach to allowing an undertrained pilot to fly an aircraft until an accident occurs. However, the Bench consciously refrained from making any final observations on the legality of the Government’s policy since the matter was already being heard by another coordinate Bench of the High Court.
The Court clarified that its immediate concern was limited to ensuring uninterrupted medical services and protecting the health and lives of the people of Maharashtra. It appreciated the IMA’s decision to withdraw the proposed strike and reminded all medical associations that protests should never result in denial of essential healthcare services.
To facilitate a broader examination of the issue, the Bench appointed Senior Advocate Vineet Naik and Advocate Amogh Singh as Amici Curiae to prepare comprehensive pleadings addressing the legality and constitutional implications of strikes by medical professionals. The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on September 8.
The proceedings underscore the High Court’s emphasis that while doctors are entitled to raise legitimate professional grievances, such protests cannot come at the cost of patient care. The observations reinforce the principle that the right to protest must be balanced against the paramount public interest in ensuring uninterrupted access to essential medical services.