The Supreme Court of India has referred the contentious issue of parity between AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) and MBBS doctors to a larger bench for authoritative resolution. The decision, delivered on October 17, 2025, by a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, arose from a batch of petitions, including State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Anisur Rahman & Ors., questioning whether AYUSH practitioners can claim equal service benefits, particularly concerning retirement age and pay scales, with doctors practicing allopathic medicine.
The court acknowledged "divergence of opinion" among previous rulings on the matter. This divergence has led to inconsistent application of service rules for AYUSH and MBBS doctors across different states, creating the need for a consistent national interpretation. In many states, allopathic doctors retire at 65, while AYUSH practitioners retire at 60, with differing pay scales as well.
The core issue revolves around whether doctors administering different forms of medicine, with varying qualifications, capabilities, and duties, can be treated equally for service benefits under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has expressed the view that the claim for parity must be decided by considering the qualifications acquired, treatment practices, functions, work, and duties performed by the doctors.
The court has also highlighted the distinctions in the services offered by allopathic and AYUSH doctors. MBBS doctors typically handle critical care, immediate life-saving measures, invasive procedures including surgeries, and post-mortems, functions not performed by AYUSH practitioners. The curriculum, diagnostic methods, treatment philosophies, and the composition of medicines also set allopathic doctors apart. The court relied on its 2023 judgment in State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, which upheld the classification based on qualifications.
Pending the larger bench's decision, the Supreme Court has allowed states and authorities the option to continue AYUSH practitioners in service beyond their current retirement age, up to the retirement age applicable to allopathic doctors, on a temporary basis, but without regular pay and allowances. The court directed that AYUSH doctors permitted to continue in service during the interim period be paid half of their pay and allowances, to be adjusted against pension or regular emoluments depending on the outcome of the reference.
If the larger bench ultimately rules in favor of AYUSH doctors, they will be entitled to full pay and allowances for the extended period; conversely, those not continued in service would still receive arrears if the issue is decided in their favor later.
The case originated from challenges by government AYUSH doctors in Rajasthan, who alleged discrimination after the state government raised the retirement age for allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 years in 2016, excluding those practicing indigenous systems. The Rajasthan High Court sided with the AYUSH doctors, declaring the difference in retirement age as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The referral to a larger bench underscores the complexity and importance of the issue, which has significant implications for the service rights and parity claims of India's indigenous medicine practitioners. The final judgment from the larger bench is expected to provide a precedent-setting resolution to the ongoing debate.
