The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Government to complete the exercise of implementing the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment relating to former Rural Health Practitioners, now recognised as Community Health Professionals. The Court held that although the State had already constituted a committee and initiated discussions after the Supreme Court's ruling, the process was left incomplete without any satisfactory explanation. The Court has now ordered the Government to revive the exercise, obtain the committee's recommendations within 90 days and take appropriate steps for implementation.
The petition was filed by Bikram Pathak and 608 other diploma holders who had undergone training under the erstwhile Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 (ARHRA Act). They were selected through a government process, completed their training and worked as Rural Health Practitioners after receiving registration under the 2004 law.
However, in 2014, the Gauhati High Court declared the ARHRA Act unconstitutional because it conflicted with the Indian Medical Council Act. The judgment did not clarify the future status of those who had already completed the course and entered service.
The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court, which in January 2023 upheld the invalidity of the 2004 Act but simultaneously protected the status of existing Rural Health Practitioners by recognising them as Community Health Professionals under the Assam Community Health Professionals' (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015.
The petitioners argued that despite the Supreme Court's directions, the State had not framed the necessary rules or service framework to enable them to function as Community Health Professionals. They sought directions for implementation of the Supreme Court judgment, framing of rules and regulations, creation of permanent posts, a separate service cadre, and other service benefits.
The State informed the Court that a committee had already been constituted and had held several meetings to consider the issue. However, during the proceedings, no clear instructions were placed before the Court regarding the committee's final recommendations or any concrete decision taken thereafter. The Court noted that the exercise appeared to have stopped midway without explanation.
Justice Soumitra Saikia observed that the Supreme Court had already settled the legal position. While declaring the 2004 legislation invalid, the apex court had specifically held that the 2015 Act was constitutionally valid and protected the existing Rural Health Practitioners by recognising them as Community Health Professionals.
The High Court said the Supreme Court had effectively ensured that the benefits earned by those who had completed training under the 2004 Act were preserved. Referring to the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Court observed that the petitioners' professional status had been protected despite the earlier law being struck down.
The Court further remarked that the petitioners had enrolled in the course through a lawful government process under a statute that remained valid at the time. They could not be faulted for pursuing the qualification or denied the benefits flowing from the Supreme Court's judgment.
The Court also highlighted the practical importance of trained healthcare personnel in rural areas. It observed that a large proportion of India's population continues to reside in villages and emphasised that qualified Community Health Professionals can play a significant role in providing basic healthcare alongside registered medical practitioners in underserved areas.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of to the above extent.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bikram Pathak and 608 Others v. State of Assam and 4 Others
Case Number: WP(C)/2581/2024
Judge: Justice Soumitra Saikia
Decision Date: 29 May 2026
