The Supreme Court of India has put forth a proposition to the Union Government and the Medical Council of India to establish a uniform policy for compulsory service by doctors who have undergone training in government institutions. This suggestion has come in light of challenges posed by the Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents, along with others, against the state government’s regulation of compulsory service. According to this regulation, doctors are required to render their services for a minimum fixed period with the state.
Reasons for Opposition against Compulsory Service
Doctors have argued that such a condition infringes upon an individual’s right to continue his profession, constitutes ‘forced labour’, violates their constitutional rights, and hampers the advancement of their careers. However, the Supreme Court has declared that doctors nationwide are obligated by the compulsory bonds they executed at the time of their admission into post-graduate and super-speciality medical courses.
Facts Supporting Compulsory Bonds
| Factors | Description |
|---|---|
| Infrastructure Development | Substantial resources are invested to develop and sustain the infrastructure for running medical colleges equipped with post-graduate and super-speciality courses. |
| Fee Structure | The fees from students are trivial compared to those charged by private medical colleges. |
| Stipends | Doctors pursuing these courses receive reasonable stipends. |
States Affirming Policies
The Supreme Court has endorsed the policies of a number of states including Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal. These compulsory bonds mandate doctors to serve in their respective states for a stipulated period, especially in rural areas.
Beneficial Aspects of Compulsory Bonds
Doctors’ original documents like mark-sheets, certificates, etc., are often retained by state authorities following the completion of speciality courses. The Supreme Court has ruled that compulsory service is for larger public interest and advantageous for deprived sections of society. Every year, approximately 31,000 doctors graduate from 269 private and government medical colleges in India. In urban areas, the ratio stands at 176 doctors for every 100,000 people, while in rural areas, less than eight doctors serve every 100,000 people spread over large expanses.
The Essentiality of Compulsory Bonds
Given the acute shortage of super specialists, and in an effort to provide healthcare to people, it’s not unreasonable for the state governments to utilise services of doctors who were beneficiaries of government assistance. As such, state governments have introduced compulsory service bonds to protect the fundamental rights of deprived sections of society under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Concerns on Violation of Fundamental Rights
While the appellants argued that their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated, the Supreme Court rejected this contention stating that when balancing communitarian dignity against the dignity of private individuals, the scales must tip in favour of communitarian dignity.
