Compulsory Bonds for Admission to Post-Graduate Medical Courses and Super Speciality Courses Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Fri, May 28, 2021, at ,10:13 AM Title of the Case – Compulsory Bonds for Admission to Post-Graduate Medical Courses and Super Speciality Courses Name of the case – Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents & ors vs. Union of India & ors., W.P. (c) No. 376 of 2018 (Supreme Court) Date of Judgment – 19th August, 2019Judges: Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant GuptaSubject and sections involved – Compulsory Bond and Article 19, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.Issue: Whether imposition of compulsory bond condition for working in medical profession is constitutional? Fact of the Case: Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents filed a writ petition 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, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal respectively.Ratio of the case - The division bench of Supreme Court while rejecting challenge against the imposition of compulsory bonds observed that 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.It was further observed that certain State Government have rigid conditions in the compulsory bonds and therefore suggested that Union of India and the Medical Council of India may take steps to have a uniform policy regarding the compulsory service to be rendered by the Doctors who are trained in Government institutions.On Question of Arbitrariness or Unreasonableness The court observed in this regard that the decision taken by the State Government to impose a condition of compulsory bond for admission to post-graduate courses and super Speciality is on the basis of relevant material and a policy decision taken by the State Government to utilize the services of doctors who were beneficiaries of Government assistance to complete their education cannot be termed arbitrary and are per se not unreasonable.On Question of being Violative of Article 19 & 21Referring to Article 19, it was contended that the compulsory bonds place a restriction on their right to carry on their profession on completion of their course. Pointing to Article 21, it was also contended that the condition requiring them to compulsorily work for a certain period of time with the Government corrodes their liberty, affecting their right to life. The bench agreed with the submission of the State of West Bengal that 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.Service Bonds and Forced Labour The bench rejected the contention that the conditions of the bond per se amount to ‘forced labour’ and thus are violative of Article 23 (1) of the Constitution. 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. The Court further agreed with the Calcutta High Court view that the contract to serve the government for a few years under reasonable terms cannot be described as one in restraint of trade and thus not in violation of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.