Holding

State governments are constitutionally competent to impose compulsory service bonds for medical postgraduate and super‑speciality courses, and such bonds are a reasonable, non‑arbitrary measure that does not infringe the petitioners' fundamental rights.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of doctors seeking admission to postgraduate and super‑speciality medical courses, challenged state government notifications that required them to execute compulsory service bonds and pay hefty penalties for default. The issues raised concerned the constitutional competence of the states to issue such bonds, alleged violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 23, and the applicability of the Specific Relief Act and the Indian Contract Act. The Supreme Court held that entries in the Seventh Schedule give states the power to legislate and issue executive orders on medical education, and that the bonds are a reasonable regulatory measure to ensure public health services. It found no arbitrariness, that the bonds do not amount to forced labour, and that they are not a restraint of trade or a violation of personal service contracts. Consequently, the Court dismissed all writ petitions and appeals, upholding the validity of the state notifications and directing the Union and the Medical Council of India to consider a uniform policy.

Issues considered

The competence of State Governments to issue compulsory service bond notifications under Article 162 and the Seventh Schedule.
Whether the compulsory service bonds violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
Whether the bonds constitute ‘forced labour’ or a restraint of trade under Article 23 and Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
Whether the bonds are enforceable contracts of personal service under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Compulsory service bondMedical educationState competenceArticle 14Article 19(1)(g)Article 21Article 23Specific Relief ActIndian Contract ActPublic healthRestraint of trade

Judgment

[2019] 12 S.C.R. 1011 1011

ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY A
ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.376 of 2018) B
AUGUST 19, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.162; Seventh Schedule, List I,
Entries 63 to 66; List III Entry 25 – Jurisdiction of the State
C
Government – Notification issued by State Government for
compulsory execution of bond by the candidates at the time of
admission to post-graduate courses and super speciality courses
providing that they shall serve the State Government for certain
stipulated period on successful completion of courses failing which
they would be liable to recompense the State Government – D
Competence of State Government to issue such notification – Held:
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
E
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 F
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
– Even in the absence of any legislation, the State Government has
G
the competence to issue executive orders under Art.162 on matters
over which the State legislature has the power to legislate – Thus,
Notifications issued by the State Governments imposing a condition
of execution of compulsory bonds at the time of admission to post-
graduate courses and super speciality courses cannot be said to be
H
1011
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A vitiated due to lack of authority or competence – Medical Council
of India Act.
Constitution of India: Art.14 – Notification issued by State
Government for compulsory execution of bond at the time of
admission of candidates to post-graduate courses and super
B specialty courses providing that they shall serve the State
Government for certain stipulated period on successful completion
of courses failing which they will be liable to recompense the State
Government – Whether violated fundamental rights and is arbitrary
– Held: Running medical colleges with post-graduate and super
speciality courses requires huge infrastructure – However, the
C amount of fees charged from the students is meagre in comparison
to the private medical colleges – The doctors are to paid reasonable
stipend – Government hospitals run by the State are duty bound to
extend medical assistance for preserving human life – Failure on
the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment
D to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right
guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution – Consequently, a policy
decision taken by the State Governments to utilize the services of
doctors who were beneficiaries of Government assistance to
complete their education cannot be termed arbitrary.
E Constitution of India: Art.14 – Notifications issued by the
State Governments imposing a condition of compulsory service and
a default clause – Reasonableness of – Held: Notifications imposing
a condition of compulsory service and a default clause are per se
not unreasonable – However, the period of compulsory service
and the exit should be reasonable – State Governments and Armed
F Forces Medical College are directed to consider imposing the
condition of compulsory service period of two years in default of
which the Doctors would recompense the Government by paying
Rs. 20 Lakhs.
Constitution of India: Arts.19(1)(g), 19(6) – Right to life and
G liberty – Right to take decisions relating to profession – According
to the Appellants, the right to carry on their profession guaranteed
by Art.19(1)(g) is violated by the compulsory bonds and that any
restriction on their right to carry on their profession by the State
Government can be made only by a “law” as per Art. 19(6) of the
H Constitution – Held: The compulsory bond executed by the
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1013
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA

Appellants is at the time of their admissions into post-graduate and A
super speciality courses – Conditions imposed for admission to a
medical college will not directly violate the right of an individual to
carry on his profession – The right to carry on the profession would
start on the completion of the course – At the outset, there is no
doubt that no right inheres in an individual to receive higher
B
education – Violation of a right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g)
does not arise in a case pertaining to admission to a college – The
condition that is imposed has a connection with the professional
activity of a doctor on completion of the course – However, the
Appellants have, without any protest, accepted the admissions and
executed the compulsory bonds – Appellants have not succeeded in C
their attempt of assailing the Notifications for being violative of
Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Constitution of India: Arts.21, 47 – Right to life – Art.21
imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of
every person – Preservation of human life is thus of paramount D
importance – The Government hospitals run by the State and the
Medical Officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical
assistance for preserving human life – In a welfare State, it is the
obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of
conditions congenial to good health – Art.47 reiterates the
constitutional obligation imposed on the State to improve public E
health.
Constitution of India: Art.21 – Right to live with dignity –
Right to life enshrined in Art.21 cannot be restricted to mere animal
existence – It means something much more than just physical survival
– The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and F
all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such
as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter, and facilities for reading,
writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about
and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings – Dignity is
the core which unites the fundamental rights because the G
fundamental rights seek to achieve for each individual the dignity
of existence – The State’s obligations are not satisfied solely by
refraining from imposing limitations on the right to human dignity –
State must also take action to protect human dignity and to facilitate
its realization – The constitutional right to dignity is intended to
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A ensure human beings’ political and civil liberties as well as their
social and economic freedoms.
Constitution of India: Art.23 – Whether the conditions of the
bond per se amount to ‘forced labour’ and thus violative of Art.23(1)
– Appellants who are required to work for a short period on a decent
B stipend cannot complain that they are made to perform ‘forced
labour’, especially after they took an informed decision to avail
the benefits of admission in government medical colleges and
received subsidized education – By no means, the service rendered
by the Appellants in Government hospitals would fall under the
expression of ‘forced labour’ – Art.23(2) enables the State
C Governments to require the Appellants to do compulsory service in
the Government hospitals which is undoubtedly for the benefit of
the public.
Constitution of India: Art.47 – Right to health is integral to
the right to life – Government has a constitutional obligation to
D provide health facilities – Art.47 reiterates the constitutional
obligation imposed on the State to improve public health – It is for
the State to secure health to its citizens as its primary duty – No
doubt, the Government is rendering this obligation by opening
Government hospitals and health centers, but in order to make it
E meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as
possible, to reduce the queue of waiting lists, and it has to provide
all facilities to employ best of talents and tone up its administration
to give effective contribution, which is also the duty of the
Government – The immediate need of the deprived sections of the
society to have proper health care is the reason behind the
F Government policy of imposing a condition of compulsory service
and a default clause – The objective of the policy is to ensure that
specialist health care is extended to the have-nots also – The right
that is claimed by the Appellants is to make an individual choice to
carry on their profession which might be hindered by the policy
G decision of the Government – On the other hand, the basic idea
behind the Government’s decision is larger public interest – Right
to life guaranteed by Art.21 means right to life with human dignity
– While balancing communitarian dignity vis-à-vis the dignity of
private individuals, the scales must tilt in favour of communitarian
dignity – The laudable objective with which the State Governments
H
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1015
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA

have introduced compulsory service bonds is to protect the A
fundamental right of the deprived sections of the society guaranteed
to them under Art.21 – The contention of the Appellants that their
rights guaranteed under Art.21 have been violated is rejected.
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.14 – Contract of Personal Service
– Prohibition of specific performance of contract for personal B
service – Held: s.14 of the Specific Relief Act prohibits the
enforcement of contracts of personal service – It is trite law that
Courts do not ordinarily enforce performance of contracts of
personal character, such as a contract of employment – None of
the State Governments made an attempt to enforce the contracts
entered into by them with the appellants through the service bonds C
– Constitution of India.
Contract Act, 1872: s.27 – Restraint on Profession – Plea of
the Appellants that compulsory bonds placed a restraint on their
profession and thus, would be contrary to s.27 of the Contract Act
– Held: A contract entered into by Appellants to serve the D
government for a few years under reasonable terms cannot be
described as one in restraint of trade – The conditions of compulsory
bonds for admission to post-graduate and super-Speciality courses
in government medical colleges are not in violation of s.27 of the
Contract Act – All the Doctors who have executed compulsory bonds E
shall be bound by the conditions contained therein – Taking note
of the fact that certain State Governments have rigid conditions in
the compulsory bonds to be executed by the Appellants and the felt
need of uniformity in the matter pertaining to the compulsory bonds,
suitable steps should be taken by the Union of India and the Medical
Council of India to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory F
service to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in government
institutions – Constitution of India.
Dismissing the writ petitions and appeals, the Court
HELD: I. Jurisdiction of the State Government: G
1. 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
H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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. Even in the
absence of any legislation, the State Government has the
C competence to issue executive orders under Article 162 of the
Constitution on matters over which the State legislature has the
power to legislate. The field of bonds requiring compulsory
employment is not covered by any Central Legislation. Therefore,
the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants that the States
lacked competence to issue the notifications as the field is
D
occupied are rejected. [Para 17] [1035-G-H; 1036-A-C]
Violation of Fundamental Rights: Article 14 :
Arbitrariness and reasonableness
2.1 Huge infrastructure has to be developed and maintained
E for running medical colleges with post-graduate and super
Speciality courses. The amount of fees charged from the students
is meagre in comparison to the private medical colleges.
Reasonable stipend has to be paid to the doctors. Above all, the
State Governments have taken into account the need to provide
F health care to the people and the scarcity of super specialists in
their States. Consequently, a policy decision taken by the State
Governments to utilize the services of doctors who were
beneficiaries of Government assistance to complete their
education cannot be termed arbitrary. Also, Notifications imposing
a condition of compulsory service and a default clause are per se
G not unreasonable. However, the period of compulsory service
and the exit should be reasonable. The State Governments and
the Armed Forces Medical College are directed to consider
imposing the condition of compulsory service period of two years
in default of which the Doctors shall recompense the Government
H by paying Rs. 20 Lakhs. [Paras 18-19] [1036-H; 1037-A-B, G-H]
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1017
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA

Article 19: A
2.2 The compulsory bond executed by the Appellants is at
the time of their admissions into post-graduate and super
Speciality courses. Conditions imposed for admission to a medical
college will not directly violate the right of an individual to carry
on his profession. The right to carry on the profession would B
start on the completion of the course. At the outset, there is no
doubt that no right inheres in an individual to receive higher
education. Violation of a right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)
does not arise in a case pertaining to admission to a college.
There is no doubt, that the condition that is imposed has a
connection with the professional activity of a doctor on completion C
of the course. However, the Appellants have, without any protest,
accepted the admissions and executed the compulsory bonds.
Execution of bonds is part of a composite package. The
Appellants have not been able to succeed in assailing the
Notifications for being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the D
Constitution. [Para 20] [1038-C-E]
Article 21
2.3 Article 21 of the Constitution of India imposes an
obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every
person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount E
importance. The Government hospitals run by the State and the
Medical Officers employed therein are duty bound to extend
medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part
of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to
a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right F
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, in a
welfare State it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation
and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. Article
47 of the Constitution reiterates the constitutional obligation
imposed on the State to improve public health. It is for the State
to secure health to its citizens as its primary duty. No doubt the G
Government is rendering this obligation by opening Government
hospitals and health centers, but in order to make it meaningful,
it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible, to
reduce the queue of waiting lists, and it has to provide all facilities
to employ best of talents and tone up its administration to give H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A effective contribution, which is also the duty of the Government.
[Paras 21-22, 25] [1039-B-C, G; 1040-A]
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of
India (1981) 1 SCC 246 : [1981] 2 SCR 185; Paschim
Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal
B (1996) 4 SCC 37 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 331; State of
Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC
117:[1998] 1 SCR 1120 ; Union of India v. Moolchand
Khairati Ram Trust. (2018) 8 SCC 321 : [2018] 7 SCR
939; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295:
[1964] SCR 332 ; Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of
C India (1987) 2 SCC 165: [1987] 2 SCR 468
- relied on.
2.4 Right to health is integral to the right to life.
Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health
facilities. The fundamental right to life which is the most precious
D human right and which forms the ark of all other rights must
therefore be interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to
invest it with significance and vitality which may endure for years
to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth
of the human person. The right to life enshrined in Article 21
E cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something
much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes
the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it,
namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition,
clothing and shelter, and facilities for reading, writing and
expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and
F mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. Every act
which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute
deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and the restriction would
have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure
established by law which stands the test of other fundamental
G rights. To live is to live with dignity. The draftsmen of the
Constitution defined their vision of the society in which
constitutional values would be attained by emphasizing, among
other freedoms, liberty and dignity. So fundamental is dignity that
it permeates the core of the rights guaranteed to the individual
by Part III of the Constitution. Dignity is the core which unites
H
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1019
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA

the fundamental rights because the fundamental rights seek to A
achieve for each individual the dignity of existence. The State’s
obligations are not satisfied solely by refraining from imposing
limitations on the right to human dignity. The State must also
take action to protect human dignity and to facilitate its realization.
[Paras 26-28] [1040-B-F]
B
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla
(1997) 2 SCC 83:[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 279; Francis
Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608: [1981] 2 SCR 516
- relied on.
C
2.5 The positive obligation of the State to uphold the dignity
of a larger section of the society is to protect the rights conferred
on them by Article 21 of the Constitution. The immediate need
of the deprived sections of the society to have proper health care
was the reason behind the policy decision of the Government.
The objective of the policy is to ensure that specialist health care D
is extended to the have-nots also. [Para 30] [1041-D]
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 :
[2017] 10 SCR 569 - followed.
2.6. The right that is claimed by the Appellants is to make E
an individual choice to carry on their profession which might be
hindered by the decision of the Government. On the other hand,
the basic idea behind the Government’s decision is larger public
interest. Private interest has to take a backseat when pitted
against public interest. [Para 31] [1041-F]
F
Mr. X v. Hospital ‘Z’, (1998) 8 SCC 296 : [1998] 1
Suppl. SCR 723; Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (D) thr.
LRs & ORs.v. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat & Anr. (2016) 4
SCC 631 : [2016] 11 SCR 476 - relied on.
2.6 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
G
recorded in the Preamble its recognition of the inherent dignity
and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace. The
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) recognizes the right of every person to the enjoyment
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
ICESCR mandates the States Parties to achieve full realization
of the aforementioned right through the creation of conditions
which would assure to all, medical service and medical attention
in the event of sickness, inter alia. Right to life guaranteed by
Article 21 means right to life with human dignity. Communitarian
B
dignity has been recognised by this Court. While balancing
communitarian dignity vis-à-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
C 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.
[Paras 32-33] [1042-C-F]
D 2.7 Whether the conditions of the bond per se amount to
‘forced labour’ and thus violative of Article 23 (1) of the
Constitution. The Appellants who are required to work for a
short period on a decent stipend cannot complain that they are
made to perform ‘forced labour’, especially after the Appellants
have taken an informed decision to avail the benefits of admission
E in government medical colleges and received subsidized
education. By no means, the service rendered by the Appellants
in Government hospitals would fall under the expression of ‘forced
labour’. Article 23 (2) of the Constitution enables the State
Governments to require the Appellants to do compulsory service
F in the Government hospitals which is undoubtedly for the benefit
of the public. [Paras 35-36] [1043-A-C, E]
Robertson v. Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) ; Butler v.
Perry (1916), 240 U.S. 328, 329 - referred to
3. Contract of Personal Service
G
Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prohibits the
enforcement of contracts of personal service. It is trite law that
Courts do not ordinarily enforce performance of contracts of
personal character, such as a contract of employment. Specific
performance of contract for personal service is not permissible
H
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1021
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA

under the Specific Relief Act, therefore, there cannot be a decree A
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 compulsory bonds fall foul of the Specific Relief
Act. [Paras 37-38] [1043-F; 1044-C]
B
Rigby v. Connol (1880) 14 Ch D 482 - referred to
4. Restraint on Profession
A contract entered into by Appellants to serve the
government for a few years under reasonable terms cannot be
described as one in restraint of trade. The conditions of C
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. All the
Doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by
the conditions contained therein. [Paras 39-40] [1044-F-H; D
1045-A]
Esso Petroleum v. Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd.
1967 1 All ER 699 - referred to.
5. Uniform policy
E
Taking note of the fact that certain State Governments have
rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds to be executed by the
Appellants and the felt need of uniformity in the matter pertaining
to the compulsory bonds, suitable steps should be taken by the
Union of India and the Medical Council of India to have a uniform
policy regarding the compulsory service to be rendered by the F
Doctors who are trained in government institutions. [Para 41]
Harsh Pratap Sisodia v. Union of India (1999) 2 SCC
575 : [1999] 1 SCR 466; Anand Biji v. State of Kerala.
(2001) 6 SCC 665 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 1; Dr.
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India. (1984) 3 SCC 654: G
[1984] 3 SCR 942 ; Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v.
State of Punjab [1955] 2 SCR 225 ; Bhishambar Dayal
Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC
39 : [1982] 1 SCR 113; Dr. Vinod Shankarlal Sharmaa
& Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2013) AIR
Bom.1 ; People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A of India (1982) 3 SCC 235 : [1983] 1 SCR 456 ;
Ch. Tikaramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC
676 ; Modern Dental College and Research Centre v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353 ;
Esso Petroleum v. Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd.1967
1 All ER 699 - referred to.
B
Case Law Reference
[1999] 1 SCR 466 referred to Para 5
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 5
C [1984] 3 SCR 942 referred to Para 5
[1955] 2 SCR 225 referred to Para 5
[1982] 1 SCR 113 referred to Para 5
[2016] 11 SCR 476 relied on Para 5
D
(2013) AIR Bom. 1 referred to Para 5
[1983] 1 SCR 456 referred to Para 8
AIR 1966 SC 676 referred to Para 9
E (2016) 7 SCC 353 referred to Para 9
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 331 relied on Para 9
[1998] 1 SCR 1120 relied on Para 9
[2018] 7 SCR 939 relied on Para 9
F
[1964] SCR 332 relied on Para 21
[1987] 2 SCR 468 relied on Para 21
[2017] 10 SCR 569 followed Para 21
G
[1981] 2 SCR 185 relied on Para 24
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 279 relied on Para 26
[1981] 2 SCR 516 relied on Para 26

H [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 723 relied on Para 31
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1023
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition A
(Civil) No. 376 of 2018
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 946 of 2018, Civil Appeal Nos. 6379, B
6380, 6381, 6382, 6383-6385, 6386 of 2019.
Balaj Srinivasan,AAG, Huzefa Ahmedi, Prashanto Chandra Sen,
Dr. Manish Singhvi, K. M. Natraj, Rakesh Dwivedi. Sr. Advs., Tanvir
Nayar, Prashant Singh, Rohan Sharma, Praful Sinha, Krishnamohan K.
Menon, Ms. Dania Nayyar, Sarim Naved, Kaustubh Singh, Atif Inam, C
Harsh Parashar, Ankit Goel, Ms. Radhika Gautam, Kunal Cheema,
Milind Kumar, Rajan Kumar Churasia, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Ms. Rekha
Pandey, G. S. Makker, A. K. Sharma, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,
K. V. Ramkumar, Ms. Jaswanthi, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Gaurav
Sharma, M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., Shishir Deshpande,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, D
Salvador Santosh Rebello, Anurag Sharma, Shirir Deshpande, G. Prakash,
Jishnu M. L, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Abhinav
Mukerji, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Suhaan Mukerji,
Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Ms. Kajal Dalal, Amit Verma,
Prastut Dalvi, Ms. Dimple Nagpal, Srijin Choudhury, Sandeep, Raja E
Chatterjee, Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, Piyush Sachdev, Ms. Runamoni
Bhuyan, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Prasanna
Mohan, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Shibashish Misra, Ashish Kumar Sinha, Chandan
Kumar Mandal, Ms. Aditi Parkhi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. The controversy in these cases pertains to the compulsory bonds
to be executed for admission to post-graduate medical courses and super
speciality courses. The Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants G
and Residents has filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.376 of 2018 seeking a
writ of mandamus for 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,
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal respectively.
A further direction is 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.
2. Writ Petition (Civil) No.946 of 2018 is filed challenging the
B Notification dated 10.06.2014 issued by the Government of West Bengal
by which every post-graduate trainee was directed to execute an
Indemnity Bond to serve the State Government for a period of three
years after successful completion of post-doctoral/MD/MS course and
for a period of two years after successful completion of the PG Diploma
course. If the trainees fail to serve the State Government as mentioned
C above, they shall be liable to recompense the State Government a penalty
amount of Rs.10 Lakhs for each defaulting year. The Appellants seek
release of original documents without insisting on the payment of Rs.30
Lakhs as envisaged by the Notification dated 10.06.2014.
3. Notifications issued by the Department of Health and Family
D Welfare, Government of West Bengal imposing the condition of execution
of compulsory bond at the time of admission to post-graduate courses
and super speciality courses were challenged in the High Court of
Calcutta. Notification dated 31.07.2013 which was assailed in the High
Court required the Appellant-doctors to work in the Multi-Speciality/
E Super Speciality Hospitals, Secondary and Tertiary Level Hospitals in
West Bengal for a period of one year after completion of their post-
graduate and post-doctoral education in State Medical Teaching
Institutions in West Bengal. Execution of bond at the time of admission
to post-graduate courses and super Speciality courses, providing that
they shall serve the State Government for a period of one year on
F successful completion of the courses, failing which they will be liable to
recompense the State Government a penalty amount of Rs.10 Lakhs,
was made compulsory.Partially modifying the Notification dated
31.07.2013, the Government of West Bengal issued a Notification on
10.06.2014 by which the condition pertaining to one year service was
G increased to two years. The compensation in case of failure by the
Doctors to serve in the State was enhanced to Rs. 30 Lakhs. 139 Doctors
who have acquired Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of
Surgery from various universities in the country challenged the
aforementioned Notifications in the High Court. The learned Single
Judge of the Calcutta High Court by a judgment dated 03.11.2017 upheld
H
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1025
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [N. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

the Notification dated 31.07.2013. However, the Notification dated A
10.09.2014 was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Aggrieved by
the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State of West Bengal filed
an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. Some of the
Writ Petitioners who were aggrieved by the judgment insofar as it related
to the Notification dated 31.07.2013 being upheld also filed appeals. By
B
the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
held that both the Notifications dated 31.07.2013 and 10.09.2014 are
neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The Division Bench set aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as it related to the Notification
dated 10.09.2014 being quashed. The points urged before the High
Court of Calcutta and the findings recorded therein shall be dealt with C
later.
4. The Appellants seeking admission to post-graduate courses in
Armed Forces Medical College, Pune were required to execute a similar
bond to serve in the Armed Forces Medical Services as Short Service
Commission Officers for a period of five years on completion of the D
post-graduate courses. In case of failure to serve for five years, the
Appellants were required to recompense the college with Rs.25 Lakhs.
The above condition was included in the brochure for admission to Post-
Graduate Medical Courses for the year 2014-2015. A writ petition was
filed in 2017 by Appellants who were admitted in the post-graduate
courses in the year 2014-2015 challenging the validity of Clause 12 of E
the Information Bulletin which required them to serve for five years in
the Armed Forces Medical Services. They sought a further direction
for return of their original documents without insisting on compulsory
service condition. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court by judgment dated 02.04.2019 with costs F
quantified at Rs.1 Lakh per petitioner. Aggrieved by the said judgment,
SLP Nos.10007 and 2387 of 2019 have been filed.
5. We proceed to refer to the various contentions raised by the
Appellants before the High Courts and judgments of the High Courts’:
Calcutta High Court: G
As stated above, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
was concerned with two Notifications dated 31.07.2013 and 10.09.2014
issued by the Government of West Bengal imposing a condition of
compulsory service in the State of West Bengal for admission to post-
H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A graduate and super Speciality courses in Government Medical Colleges
in the State. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that they
became entitled for admission to post-graduate and super Speciality
courses in the government medical colleges in the State of West Bengal
on the basis of their merit in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance
Examination (AIPGMEE). According to them, additional eligibility
B
conditions cannot be introduced by the State Government in respect of
All India Quota candidates. Imposition of a condition of compulsory
service infringes their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. In any case, introduction of compulsory bonds
can only be by way of legislation and not by an executive order. They
C relied on a judgment of this Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia v. Union of
India1 to buttress their submission relating to the bar on the State in
fixing addition eligibility criteria. In this connection, they placed reliance
on an order passed by this Court in Anand Biji v. State of
Kerala.2Theyfurther contended that the insistence of a condition to serve
in the State compulsorily would result in reservations being made by the
D
State, which would be contrary to the judgment of this Court in Dr.
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India.3They further submitted that the service
bonds executed by the Appellants fall foul of Section 27 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. The Notifications that were issued by the State
Government were also challenged on the ground of unconstitutionality
E as the State Government lacked competence to issue such notifications.
It was argued that all matters pertaining to medical education are covered
by the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. As the field was already
occupied by a Union Legislation, the State Government does not have
the competence to legislate on the same subject matter. In view of the
lack of legislative competence, the State Government does not have the
F
power to issue executive orders in respect of compulsory bonds.
On behalf of the State of West Bengal, it was argued that it was
well within the competence of the State Government to issue executive
instructions if the field was not occupied. The judgment of this Court in
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab4 and Bhishambar
G Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh5 were cited in support

1
(1999) 2 SCC 575
2
(2001) 6 SCC 665
3
(1984) 3 SCC 654
4
(1955) 2 SCR 225
H 5
(1982) 1 SCC 39
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1027
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

of the said proposition. It was submitted by the State before the Division A
Bench that the decisions of this Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra)
and Anand Biji (supra) did not relate to the compulsory bonds and hence,
were not applicable to the facts of the case. The stand of the State was
that none of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 were
violated as the Appellants chose to be admitted in government colleges
B
in the State of West Bengal without any protest or demur, and they
cannot be permitted to assail the conditions on their admissions at the
fag end of their courses.
The following issues were framed for consideration by the Division
Bench:
C
“(i) Could the State Government have introduced the bond
system by issuing the notifications which are under challenge
in the present proceeding or was legislation necessary for
that purpose?
(ii) Do the notifications impinge upon the freedom of the D
petitioners to practice any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g)
of the Constitution?
(iii) Were the writ petitioners aware of the bond system before
opting for West Bengal as their academic destination for post E
graduate medical studies?
(iv) Is the bond system in restraint of a lawful profession,
trade or business and is thus violative of Sec.27 of the Indian
Contract Act?
(v) Is there any such infirmity in the judgment and order F
impugned before us as would warrant interference by this
Court?”
The first issue was answered in favour of the State by the Division
Bench holding that the provisions of Article 166 (1) & (2) were being
complied with before the Notifications were issued. The Division Bench G
held that the Notifications issued by the State Government did not impinge
on the freedom of the Appellants to practice any profession or to carry
on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India. Article 162 of the Constitution refers to the
extent of the executive power of the State Government and that power
H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A is not restricted only to matters on which legislation has already been
passed. The Division Bench observed that the State Government has
the right to fill the vacuum which exists due to the absence of any
legislation and which can be filled by the executive instructions in the
form of circulars/notifications. The Division Bench was of the opinion
that there is no fundamental right to pursue post-graduate medical
B
education, especially in government colleges where higher education is
subsidized. The Division Bench concurred with the findings of the learned
Single Judge that the Appellants, who secured admissions in post-graduate
medical colleges after taking an informed decision to receive education
at a highly subsidized rate, cannot be permitted to question the compulsory
C medical service bonds. The point raised by the Appellants about the
disability of the State Governments in introducing additional eligibility
criteria was rejected by the Division Bench on the ground that the
judgments of this Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra) and Anand
Biji (supra) were not applicable to the facts of this case. The Division
Bench stressed the point relating to the primacy of public health when it
D
comes in conflict with private interest. It relied upon a judgment of this
Court in Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (D) thr. LRs & ORs. V. Shirdi
Nagar Panchayat & Anr.6to hold that the notion of public interest is
synonymous with collective welfare of the people and public institutions,
and is generally informed by the dictates of the public trust doctrine –
E res communis (i.e. everyone is common). The Division Bench rejected
the point raised by the Appellants that the compulsory bonds were in
violation of Section 27 of the Contract Act. It was held that the post-
graduate medical courses and the service bond were a package. The
Division Bench sought support from the judgment of the High Court of
Bombay in Dr.Vinod Shankarlal Sharma & Ors. v. The State of
F
Maharashtra & Anr7. to uphold the constitutionality of the Government
Resolutions imposing service bond. On the basis of the above findings,
the Division Bench upheld the Notifications dated 31.07.2013 and
10.09.2014.
Karnataka High Court:
G
The Government of Karnataka insisted that the Appellants who
have completed post-graduate degrees/diploma courses in government
medical colleges should serve the Government for one year. Sub-rule
6
(2016) 4 SCC 631
7
H 2013 AIR Bom. 1
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1029
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

(7) of Rule 15 of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection A
and Admission to Postgraduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma
Courses Rules, 2006, framed under Section 14 (1) of the Karnataka
Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, imposes
a penalty of Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.25 Lakhs respectively for Postgraduate
Degree and Postgraduate Diploma students on their failure to serve the
B
Government on completion of their respective courses. All the Writ
Petitioners executed the obligation bond at the time of their admission.
On completion of their courses, they filed a writ petition in the High
Court questioning the bonds on several grounds. The points raised by
them relating to the undertaking being vitiated by coercion and violation
of Article 23 of the Constitution and other fundamental rights have been C
answered against them. The submission of the Appellants that they
should be exempted from the bond obligations as they were admitted
from the All India Quota was also rejected by the High Court.
Kerala High Court:
A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dealt with the issue D
pertaining to compulsory bonds and held that there is no restriction imposed
on the medical students from practicing the profession. The restriction
was only regarding their choice of place of practice for one year. After
dealing with all the points pertaining to restriction from trade or profession
and the public policy, Seshadri Naidu, J. speaking for the Court stated E
that those Appellants who were benefited by subsidised medical education
must repay their debt/gratitude.
High Court of Judicature at Bombay :
Writ Petitions filed by the students of super speciality courses
were considered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at F
Bombay. Imposition of a condition that the Appellants should serve in
the Government medical colleges for a period of one year failing which
they have to pay a penalty was found to be neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) was of the
firm opinion that the judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) G
which pertained to reservations on the basis of domicile status had no
connection with service bonds. The Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court held that the compulsory bond requiring each Appellant to
serve for one year is also not disproportionate. It was observed in the
said judgment that the State has a legitimate interest in ensuring the
H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A students who benefitted from the infrastructure created by it must
contribute back to the community by public service. The Division Bench
took note of the fact that post-graduate and super Speciality doctors
were being posted as Registrars and Senior Residents. After examining
the need for the Government to utilize the services of the post-graduate
and super Speciality doctors, the Division Bench gave a direction that
B
they should be allotted to posts which are commensurate with their
qualifications.
Gujarat High Court:
The learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court took a view
C different from the one taken by Calcutta High Court, Kerala High Court,
Karnataka High Court and the Bombay High Court. Execution of bonds
by the doctors was a result of coercion as per the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, who declared the bond agreement
as unreasonable and unconscionable. Ergo, the bond agreement was
opposed to public policy and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
D We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat
that an appeal has been filed against the said judgment which is pending
consideration before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.
Pleadings

E 6. Having taken note of the judgments of the High Courts, it is
time to consider the submissions that are made before us. Mr. Prashanto
Chandra Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners
in Writ Petition (Civil) No.376 of 2018 argued that the doctors who have
completed the post-graduate courses and super Speciality courses are
national assets. Their services should be utilized in the best possible
F manner in places where there are facilities and they should not be wasted
in rural areas. Their presence in institutions at the national level would
be beneficial to the society apart from providing an opportunity to them
to hone their skills. He stated that additional conditions in the nature of
bonds cannot be imposed by the State Government which would disturb
G the balance stipulated by the Medical Council of India Regulations. He
submitted that the conditions imposed by the State Government are
onerous and he commended for our acceptance that a reasonable exit
clause should exist.
7. Mr. Krishnamohan Menon, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants in SLP (Civil) No.2387 of 2019, SLP (C) No.10 of 2010 and
H
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1031
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

SLP (C) Dy.No. 19100 of 2019 in the Appeals arising out of the judgment A
of the Calcutta High Court questioned the Notifications as being
unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution. He urged that the notifications would not constitute “law”
within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution. He submitted that
the Appellants have freedom to carry on trade and profession guaranteed
B
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which can be restricted only
by a law made by the State Legislature in the interest of the general
public. Any restrictions to be placed on the freedom to carry on trade
and profession should be reasonable. According to him, the bonds
imposed by the Notifications failed the test of reasonableness. He
submitted that the post-graduate and super Speciality Doctors are not C
equipped to handle health needs in rural areas, and by not utilizing the
skills of these specialists, the Government would be doing disservice to
the society. He referred to instances in which specialists in Cardiology,
Pathology and Pediatrics were asked to take care of the primary medical
health care. He voiced his concern for the need to balance the academic
D
career and personal incentives for Appellants with public interest. He
also complained of arbitrariness in imposition of bond conditions. He
dealt with the point of the Notifications suffering from the vice of lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the State Government.
8. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Appellants in the Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.10007 of 2019 E
contended that the condition imposed for rendering compulsory service
in the Army is violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 23 (1) read with Article
21 of the Constitution. The compulsory bond is violative of Section 27 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 apart from being barred by Section 14 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963. According to Mr. Ahmadi, insistence of F
compulsory service in the Army for five years is ‘forced labour’ which
is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution. People’s Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India8 was cited in support of the said
proposition. He further asserted that Article 23(2) is an exception to
Article 23(1). Compulsory employment provided under Article 23(2)
can be introduced only by way of legislation and not by a mere executive G
instruction. By referring to Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, Mr.
Ahmadi submitted that a contract of personal service is not enforceable.
He also commended that there should be a reasonable exit clause. Ms.
8
(1982) 3 SCC 235
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A Radhika Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in the
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15688 of 2019 adopted the submissions
made by Mr. Ahmadi and sought for the release of original documents
which were taken from the Appellants at the time of their admission to
post-graduate courses to enable them to participate in the counselling
for admissions into the super Speciality courses.
B
9. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State of West Bengal submitted that the executive power of the State
Government is co-extensive to the power of the State Legislature to
legislate, as medical education falls under Entry 25 of List III of the 7th
Schedule to the Constitution. Mr. Dwivedi posited that the State
C Government has a role to play in admissions unless the field is completely
occupied by a Central Legislation. In support of the submission that the
State has always the power to supplement and not supplant the provisions
of a statute, he relied upon Ch. Tikaramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh9and
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya
D Pradesh.10 According to Mr. Dwivedi, the subject matter relating to
compulsory bonds is not a subject matter of any legislation made by the
Parliament. He further contended that in furtherance of the right to
health which falls under Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution,
there is a duty cast on the State Government to provide medical facilities.
He sought support of the judgments of this Court in Paschim Banga
E Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal11, State of Punjab v.
Ram Lubhaya Bagga12 and Union of India v. Moolchand Khairati
Ram Trust.13 Mr. Dwivedi urged that the source from which the
doctors are selected for post-graduate courses and super Speciality
courses is not relevant to decide the validity of the compulsory bonds on
F the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. No special status can
be assigned to doctors who are admitted in seats allotted to All India
Quota as they lose their birthmarks after admission to their colleges. He
stated that treating All India Quota students as a separate class can
result in unreasonable classification and hostile discrimination against
the State Quota students. Mr. Dwivedi argued that the policy of the
G State Government is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. He submitted
9
AIR 1966 SC 676.
10
(2016) 7 SCC 353
11
(1996) 4 SCC 37 ¶ 9 & 16
12
(1998) 4 SCC 117 ¶ 26, 27 & 35
13
H (2018) 8 SCC 321
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1033
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L.. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

that an amount of Rs.23,93,784/- is spent on each Doctor at the post- A
graduate level by the Government of West Bengal and hence the
requirement of the penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs for each defaulting year is
neither excessive nor disproportionate. There is no fundamental right to
pursue post-graduate medical education for which reason no complaint
can be made by the Appellants for violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the
B
Constitution. While dealing with the submissions of infringement of
Article 23(1) of the Constitution, he submitted that imposition of
compulsory service for public purposes is permitted by Article 23(2) of
the Constitution. He referred to a Report of World Health Organisation
(WHO) released in 2010 which also recommended compulsory service
of health professionals in rural and remote areas. Compulsory services C
varying from one to nine years are prevalent in about 70 countries.
Utilizing the services of talented and skilled doctors is in conformity with
the National Health Policy14. Mr. Dwivedi further submitted that the
point pertaining to Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act does not
arise for our consideration as the State Governments are not seeking
D
specific relief of enforcement. He asseverated that compulsory service
bond is a part of the integral package for providing highly subsidized
medical education at post-graduate level and that retention of the
documents to ensure compliance with the conditions of the compulsory
service bonds is permissible.
10. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General E
appearing for the State of Goa provided information relating to the amounts
spent on doctors receiving post-graduation education in the State of Goa.
The State of Goa spends an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs for a student per
annum for specialization. The amount of fee that is charged from each
student is Rs.77,500/-. The students undergoing super Speciality courses F
are paid a monthly stipend of Rs. 86,927/- for the first year, Rs. 89,495/
- for the second year and Rs. 92,191/- for the third year. The doctors
who receive highly subsidized medical education are obligated to render
public service and the State has a legitimate right to insist on the doctors
serving the State for a short period of time. The bond condition in the
State of Goa is that doctors who receive education in Government colleges G
should serve for three years in the State, in default of which they are
liable to pay Rs.10 Lakhs. He supported the policy of the State
Government being in public interest.
14
World Health Organization (2010). Increasing access to health workers in remote
and rural areas through improved retention. Geneva: World Health Organization. H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A 11. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General for the
Union of India and the Armed Forces Medical College requested us not
to interfere with the judgment of the Bombay High Court as the
Appellants who were admitted to the post-graduate courses after
executing the bond cannot be permitted to question the requirement of
the compulsory bond on completion of the course. He contended that
B
the requirement of compulsory service in the Army is in public interest.
He further submitted that the judgment in Harsh Pratap Sisodia(supra)
and the order passed in Anand S. Biji (supra) were not related to the
bond conditions and cannot be taken advantage of by the Appellants. He
also stated that the requirement of the bond to serve for five years does
C not deserve any relaxation.
12. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State of Rajasthan contended that there is no fundamental right to receive
higher education and the question of violation of Article 19(1)(g) does
not arise. He fairly submitted that the executive instructions and
D notifications issued by the Government necessitating the compulsory bond
do not fall within the expression “law” under Article 13 of the Constitution.
But, as there is no violation of any fundamental right, no fault can be
found with the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise
of their powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. He argued that
the beneficiaries of Government funds form a different class and it is
E permissible for the State Government to impose conditions for admission
into government colleges.
13. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing for the
State of Gujarat submitted that there are six colleges in the State of
Gujarat imparting education in super speciality courses. In all, there are
F 122 seats out of which 76 seats are in the government colleges and 46
seats in the private colleges. A nominal fee of Rs.40,000/- is charged
from the doctors who are paid a stipend of Rs.72,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and
Rs.80,000/- per month for their first year, second year and third year
courses respectively. There is a high demand for super Speciality doctors
G in the State of Gujarat in view of the large number of patients in
departments of Oncology, Cardiology and Nephrology in the super
Speciality hospitals. In view of the health need of the patients and the
acute shortage of super specialists, the State Government decided to
introduce the compulsory bond. The super specialists are posted only in
the four super Speciality hospitals run by the Government.
H
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1035
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L.. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

14. Mr. Shibashish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the State A
of Orissa brought to our notice that all the 45 seats in the super Speciality
courses in the State are filled up on the basis of merit in the All India
Counselling. The fee charged in the Government colleges is Rs. 45,000/
- per year and the stipend of Rs.56,826/- is paid to the doctors undergoing
super Speciality courses. There is serious shortage of super Speciality
B
doctors in the State and the Government’s decision to introduce the bond
system is in public interest.
15. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu stated that there are 334 super
Speciality seats in 24 Government medical colleges run by the State
Government. The Government is charging only Rs.30,000/- per annum C
from the doctors undergoing super Speciality courses. An amount of
Rs.21 Lakhs is spent on each post-graduate student by the Government.
Earlier, the bond required super specialists to serve for 10 years in the
State and pay Rs.2 Crores in default. The State reviewed the policy and
reduced the bond amount to Rs.50 Lakhs. The period of service to be D
rendered by the doctors who have undergone training in Super Speciality
courses has been reduced to two years from ten years. It is also brought
to our notice that about 217 candidates have violated the bond conditions.
Analysis:
16. The main points that require consideration are: E

I. Jurisdiction of the State Government,
II. Violation of Fundamental Rights,
III. Contract of Personal Service, and
F
IV. Restraint on Profession.
I.Jurisdiction of the State Government:
17. 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 G
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
H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A 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. Even in the absence of any legislation, the State
B
Government has the competence to issue executive orders under Article
162 of the Constitution on matters over which the State legislature has
the power to legislate. The Notifications issued by the State Governments
imposing a condition of execution of compulsory bonds at the time of
admission to post-graduate courses and super Speciality courses cannot
C 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. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants
that the States lacked competence to issue the notifications as the field
is occupied are rejected.
D II. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
Article 14 :
A. Arbitrariness
18. The Appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the State
E Governments imposing conditions for their admission in the post-graduate
courses and super Speciality courses. According to them, the State
Governments have understood the decision of this Court in Harsh Pratap
Sisodia (supra) to be a restraint on the exercise of their power in matters
relating to eligibility criteria for admission to medical course. Suddenly,
the introduction of the compulsory bonds after 15 years of the judgment
F in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra) is the result of decision taken by the
State Governments which is dubbed by the Appellants as arbitrary. This
Court in Harsh Pratap Sisodia (supra) was concerned with the
additional eligibility criteria being introduced by the State Governments
for the 15% All India Quota students. The decision taken by the State
G Governments to impose a condition of compulsory bond for admission to
post-graduate courses and super Speciality is on the basis of relevant
material. Huge infrastructure has to be developed and maintained for
running medical colleges with post-graduate and super Speciality courses.
The amount of fees charged from the students is meagre in comparison

H
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1037
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

to the private medical colleges. Reasonable stipend has to be paid to the A
doctors. Above all, the State Governments have taken into account the
need to provide health care to the people and the scarcity of super
specialists in their States. Consequently, a policy decision taken by the
State Governments to utilize the services of doctors who were
beneficiaries of Government assistance to complete their education cannot
B
be termed arbitrary.
B. Reasonableness
19. Reasonableness is a ground that pervades through the
submissions made by the counsel on both sides. In the State of West
Bengal, the requirement of a compulsory bond was initially a service of C
one year in the State in default of Rs.10 Lakhs was to be paid. This was
enhanced to three years and Rs.30 Lakhs by a Notification dated
09.10.2014. In the State of Tamil Nadu, the bond condition was that a
doctor has to serve for ten years in the State and in default of which, the
doctor was to pay Rs.2 Crores. This was reduced to two years and
Rs.50 Lakhs. The Armed Forces Medical College imposes a condition D
of five years compulsory service in the Army for post-graduate and
super Speciality doctors who prosecuted their study in the college. They
have an option of not serving for five years by recompensing the
Government by paying Rs.25 Lakhs. The main contention of the counsel
appearing for the Appellants is that the condition of a long period of E
service that is imposed is unreasonable. The basis for the submission is
that they have already served the society by working in Government
hospitals while undergoing their course. Further conditions imposed on
them would impede the progress of their careers. Restrictions placed
on their choice of place of work are also unreasonable according to
them. An alternate submission made by the counsel appearing for the F
Appellants is that the imposition of the condition of compulsory bond
should be reasonable and the exit clause should be relaxed. Notifications
issued by the State Governments imposing a condition of compulsory
service and a default clause are per se not unreasonable. However, we
are in agreement with the learned counsel for the doctors that the period G
of compulsory service and the exit should be reasonable. The State
Governments and the Armed Forces Medical College are directed to
consider imposing the condition of compulsory service period of two
years in default of which the Doctors shall recompense the Government
by paying Rs. 20 Lakhs.
H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A Article 19:
20. According to the Appellants, the right to carry on their
profession which is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) is violated by the
compulsory bonds. They contend that the compulsory bonds place a
restriction on their right to carry on their profession on completion of
B their course. It is also submitted that any restriction on their right to
carry on their profession by the State Government can be made only by
a “law” as per Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Consequently, the
Notifications that were issued by the State Governments fall foul of
Article 19(1)(g). The compulsory bond executed by the Appellants is at
the time of their admissions into post-graduate and super Speciality
C courses. Conditions imposed for admission to a medical college will not
directly violate the right of an individual to carry on his profession. The
right to carry on the profession would start on the completion of the
course. At the outset, there is no doubt that no right inheres in an individual
to receive higher education. Violation of a right guaranteed under Article
D 19(1)(g) does not arise in a case pertaining to admission to a college.
There is no doubt, that the condition that is imposed has a connection
with the professional activity of a doctor on completion of the course.
However, the Appellants have, without any protest, accepted the
admissions and executed the compulsory bonds. Execution of bonds is
part of a composite package. We are in agreement with the judgment of
E the Calcutta High Court that the Appellants have not been able to succeed
in their attempt of assailing the Notifications for being violative of Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We uphold the said finding of the Division
Bench.
Article 21
F
21. The Appellants contended before the Calcutta High Court
that their liberty is curtailed by the compulsory bonds. The scope of
liberty which has been enhanced by this Court includes personal autonomy
to take decisions relating to their profession. It was contended that the
condition requiring them to compulsorily work for a certain period of
G time with the Government corrodes their liberty, affecting their right to
life. They relied upon judgments of this Court in Kharak Singh v. State
of U.P.15and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India16 while advancing
this submission. Referring to a judgment of this Court in Sayyed
15
AIR 1963 SC 1295
H 16
(2017) 10 SCC 1
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1039
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L.. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

Ratanbhai Sayeed (supra), the High Court held that private rights, when A
in conflict with public interest, have to take a back seat. The High Court
also recalled what Marcus Tullius Cicero said about the good of the
people being the chief law.
22. Article 21 of the Constitution of India imposes an obligation on
the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of B
human life is thus of paramount importance. The Government hospitals
run by the State and the Medical Officers employed therein are duty
bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure
on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment
to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.17 Therefore, in a welfare C
State it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the
sustaining of conditions congenial to good health.18
23. Article 47 of the Constitution reiterates the constitutional
obligation imposed on the State to improve public health. The Directive
Principle provides as follows: D

“47. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition
and the standard of living of its people and the improvement
of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular,
the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the
consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating E
drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”
24. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of
19
India it was held that maintenance and improvement of public health
have to rank high as these are indispensable to the very physical existence
of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of F
the society of which the Constitution makers envisaged. It was further
observed in the above judgment that attending to public health, therefore,
is of high priority- perhaps the one at the top.
25. It is for the State to secure health to its citizens as its primary
duty. No doubt the Government is rendering this obligation by opening G
Government hospitals and health centers, but in order to make it
meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible,
17
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B. (1996) 4 SCC 37
18
Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 165
19
(1981) 1 SCC 246
H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A to reduce the queue of waiting lists, and it has to provide all facilities to
employ best of talents and tone up its administration to give effective
contribution, which is also the duty of the Government20.
26. Right to health is integral to the right to life. Government has
a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities21. The fundamental
B right to life which is the most precious human right and which forms the
ark of all other rights must therefore be interpreted in a broad and expansive
spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality which may endure
for years to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the
worth of the human person. The right to life enshrined in Article 21
cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much
C more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to
live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare
necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter, and
facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms,
freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human
D beings. Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would
constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and the restriction
would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure
established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights22.
27. To live is to live with dignity. The draftsmen of the Constitution
E defined their vision of the society in which constitutional values would
be attained by emphasizing, among other freedoms, liberty and dignity.
So fundamental is dignity that it permeates the core of the rights
guaranteed to the individual by Part III of the Constitution. Dignity is the
core which unites the fundamental rights because the fundamental rights
seek to achieve for each individual the dignity of existence23.
F
28. The State’s obligations are not satisfied solely by refraining
from imposing limitations on the right to human dignity. The State must
also take action to protect human dignity and to facilitate its realization.
The constitutional right to dignity is intended to ensure human beings’
political and civil liberties as well as their social and economic freedoms24.
G
20
State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117
21
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) 2 SCC 83
22
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608
23
K.S. Puttaswamy (supra)
24
Aharon Barak, Human Dignity: the Constitutional Value and the Constitutional Right
in Christopher McCrudden (ed.),Understanding Human Dignity, Proceedings of the
H British Academy, 192, pp. 361-80 at p. 367.
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1041
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L.. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

29. Dr. A. K. Sikri. J. in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India25 A
observed that the realisation of intrinsic worth of every human being as
a member of society is an indispensable condition, and has been recognised
as an important human right. Truly speaking, this is directed towards the
deprived, downtrodden and the have-nots. He further held that the
humanistic concept of human dignity which is to be accorded to that
B
particular segment of the society has to be kept in mind. Their human
dignity is based on the socio-economic rights that are read into the
fundamental rights. The importance of the communitarian approach
along with the individualistic approach to human dignity was addressed
by Dr. A.K. Sikri, J. in the above judgment. The learned Judge emphasised
on the role of the State and community in establishing collective goals C
and restrictions on individual freedoms and rights on behalf of a certain
idea of the good life.
30. We accept the submission of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned
Senior Counsel for the State of West Bengal that the positive obligation
of the State to uphold the dignity of a larger section of the society is to D
protect the rights conferred on them by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The immediate need of the deprived sections of the society to have
proper health care was the reason behind the policy decision of the
Government. The objective of the policy is to ensure that specialist
health care is extended to the have-nots also.
E
31. The next question that arises is whether there is a conflict
between the rights of the community and the rights of the Appellants.
As stated earlier, the right that is claimed by the Appellants is to make an
individual choice to carry on their profession which might be hindered by
the decision of the Government. On the other hand, the basic idea behind
the Government’s decision is larger public interest. The judgment of this F
Court in Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (supra) relied upon by the High
Court is to the effect that private interest has to take a back seat when
pitted against public interest. In Mr. X v. Hospital ‘Z’,26 Saghir Ahmad
J speaking for this Court, held that:
44….Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental G
Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant’s right to
privacy as part of right to life and Ms ‘Y’s right to lead a

25
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 1 [AADHAAR 5JB].
26
(1998) 8 SCC 296 H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A healthy life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21,
the right which would advance the public morality or public
interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court,
for the reason that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay
and the Judges are not expected to sit as mute structures of clay
in the hall known as the courtroom, but have to be sensitive, “in
B
the sense that they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse
of the accepted morality of the day”.” [emphasis supplied].
32. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recorded
in the Preamble its recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the
C foundation of freedom, justice and peace. The International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes the right
of every person to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health. ICESCR mandates the States Parties to
achieve full realization of the aforementioned right through the creation
D of conditions which would assure to all, medical service and medical
attention in the event of sickness, inter alia.
33.The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that right to
life guaranteed by Article 21 means right to life with human dignity.
Communitarian dignity has been recognised by this Court. While balancing
E communitarian dignity vis-à-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
F of the Constitution of India have been violated is rejected.
Article 23
34. Article 23 reads as follows:
23. “(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar
G forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention
of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance
with law.
(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing
compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such
service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds
H only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.”
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1043
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

35.The submission of Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel A
for the Appellants is that the conditions of the bond per se amount to
‘forced labour’ and thus are violative of Article 23 (1) of the Constitution.
Mr. Dwivedi expostulated the said submission by referring to Article 23
(2) which confers power on the State to impose compulsory service for
public purpose. Reliance was placed upon the Constituent Assembly
B
Debates by Mr. Dwivedi explaining the scope of compulsory employment
for public purpose under Article 23 (2) of the Constitution of India. The
Appellants who are required to work for a short period on a decent
stipend cannot complain that they are made to perform ‘forced labour’,
especially after the Appellants have taken an informed decision to avail
the benefits of admission in government medical colleges and received C
subsidized education. By no means, the service rendered by the
Appellants in Government hospitals would fall under the expression of
‘forced labour’.
36.The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery
and involuntary servitude. The Supreme Court of the United States held D
that compulsory employment for public purpose does not amount to
‘involuntary servitude’ in Robertson v. Baldwin27 and Butler v. Perry28.
Article 23 (2) of the Constitution enables the State Governments to
require the Appellants to do compulsory service in the Government
hospitals which is undoubtedly for the benefit of the public.
E
III. Contract of Personal Service
37. Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prohibits the
enforcement of contracts of personal service. The submission of Mr.
Ahmadi that the contract of personal service, in the form of a compulsory
bond, is not enforceable was dealt with by Mr. Dwivedi, who argued F
that the State Governments do not intend to enforce the contract in a
court of law. It is trite law that Courts do not ordinarily enforce
performance of contracts of personal character, such as a contract of
employment29. Reference can be made to the judgment of Jessel, M.R.,
in Rigby v. Connol30wherein he held that:
G
27
165 U.S. 275 (1897) [US Supreme Court]
28
(1916), 240 U.S. 328, 329.
29
Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. Rae Bareli & Anr. v. Badri Nath Dixit & Ors. (1991)
3 SCC 54
30
(1880) 14 Ch D 482, 487
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A “The courts have never dreamt of enforcing agreements strictly
personal in their nature, whether they are agreements of hiring
and service, being the common relation of master and servant
….”
38.Specific performance of contract for personal service is not
B 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. We
are not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Ahmadi that the
compulsory bonds fall foul of the Specific Relief Act.
C
IV. Restraint on Profession
39. The argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants that
compulsory bonds placed a restraint on their profession and thus, would
be contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The High
D Court of Calcutta repelled this submission by holding that the compulsory
bond does not amount to any restraint on the professional activity of the
Appellants. The High Court observed that the Appellants are offered
the job of Medical Officer in the State of West Bengal and that the
covenant in the compulsory bond operates only during the period of such
employment. Relying upon the dictum of Lord Morris in Esso Petroleum
E v. Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd.,31that “if A made a contract under
which he willingly agreed to serve B on reasonable terms for a few
years and to give his whole working time to B, it would be surprising
indeed, if it were sought to describe the contract as being in restraint of
trade; in fact, such a contract would very likely be for the advancement
F of trade’, the High Court concluded that a contract entered into by
Appellants to serve the government for a few years under reasonable
terms cannot be described as one in restraint of trade. We are in
agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court of Calcutta.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the conditions of
compulsory bonds for admission to post-graduate and super-Speciality
G courses in government medical colleges are not in violation of Section
27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
40. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Writ Petitions
and the Appeals deserve to be dismissed. Consequently, all the Doctors

H 31
1967 1 All ER 699.
ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPER SPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND 1045
RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

who have executed compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions A
contained therein.
41. Taking note of the fact that certain State Governments have
rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds to be executed by the Appellants
and the felt need of uniformity in the matter pertaining to the compulsory
bonds, we suggest that suitable steps be taken by the Union of India and B
the Medical Council of India to have a uniform policy regarding the
compulsory service to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in
government institutions.
42. The Writ Petitions and the Appeals are dismissed.
C
Devika Gujral Matters disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H