Supreme Court Quashes Appointment to National Commission for Homeopathy Over Statutory Eligibility Breach

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard appeals arising from challenges to the selection and appointment to the office of Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy under the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020. The appeals arose from a writ petition by Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil contesting the selection of the incumbent Chairperson on the ground that he did not satisfy the statutory requirement of ten years’ experience as a “leader” (defined as “Head of a Department” or “Head of an Organisation”).

The Court allowed the appeal against the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, restored the Single Judge’s decision quashing the appointment, and directed that the incumbent step down. The Court held that the Search Committee’s process suffered from “total lack of procedural fairness” and that there was “no material before the Search Committee on the basis of which the third respondent could have been held to be eligible” for the statutory ten-year leadership experience. The Court affirmed the limited scope of judicial review in selections by expert bodies but clarified that interference was justified where mandatory statutory qualifications or procedures were breached. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “What appears to be disturbing is the total lack of procedural fairness in the present case. If indeed a doubt had lingered in the mind of the members of the Search Committee as to whether an aspirant is eligible in terms of the requirements of the statute, is it not the duty of the Search Committee, in order to remain above board, to write even a single sentence and record its satisfaction in the minutes that the doubt has been cleared? The answer to this question cannot be in the negative.” The Court further found that the Secretary to the Government of India’s contemporaneous Departmental Order stating that the incumbent “fulfils the eligibility requirements” lacked underlying documentary support and amounted to an impermissible equivalence determination unsupported by material.

Background The NCH Act prescribed that the Chairperson must have 20 years’ experience in Homoeopathy, of which at least ten years must be as a “leader” — explained as Head of a Department or Head of an Organisation. The Ministry of AYUSH issued a public notification in January 2021; 37 candidates applied. The appellant alleged that the selected candidate (then Director General, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy — CCRH) did not possess ten years’ experience as a leader and thus was ineligible.

The Search Committee initially recorded that it was “not clear” whether the incumbent had ten years’ experience as Head and stated he “may be eligible subject to submission and Verification of documents of experience.” The Secretary, Government of India, wrote on May 6, 2021: “In this regard, I have got the matter examined in the Ministry of Ayush and after verifying the documents of experience, it is confirmed that Dr. Anil Khurana, DG, CCRH is having the requisite experience of 10 years equivalent to Head of Department. He, therefore, fulfils the eligibility requirements for the post in terms of the provisions of the Act.” The Single Judge quashed the appointment for non-compliance with statutory eligibility and directed a fresh selection; the Division Bench reversed that decision and upheld the appointment.

On review of the selection file (produced in sealed cover) and office orders from CCRH, the Supreme Court found the documentary record did not support the Secretary’s assertion. Office orders showed that the incumbent was declared “Head of Office” only from July 2012 and became second in command from January 27, 2014; on any favourable construction he fell short of the ten-year leadership requirement by several months on the relevant dates. The Court held that mandatory qualifications in the statute and advertisement could not be relaxed in the absence of a statutory power to do so, and that the appointing authority’s ipse dixit as to “equivalence” lacked evidentiary basis. The Court also observed that where an appointment departed from mandatory statutory rules or procedure, judicial interference was permissible even though courts generally refrained from merit review of expert selections. The Court ordered that the incumbent step down within one week, preserved benefits already received but barred future benefits beyond seven days from the date, and directed expeditious initiation of a fresh selection process. The appellant’s challenge to the Single Judge’s refusal to direct his own appointment was dismissed. No costs were imposed.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 301–303 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) NOS. 20360-20362 OF 2024); Citation: 2025 INSC 201 Case Title: Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kamath (learned senior counsel) for Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General (for Union of India and Search Committee); Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Senior Counsel (for the third respondent)