Back
Dismisses Electrohomeopathy Practitioner’s Plea to Practice Allopathy Citing Public Health Risks
In a decisive ruling that reinforces the rigid boundaries of medical practice, the has dismissed a filed by Santosh Kumar Sharma, an electrohomeopathy certificate holder, who sought permission to practice modern allopathic medicine and have the seal removed from his clinic. The of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that no one can cross over from one system of medicine to another without the requisite recognized qualification and registration, describing the petitioner as a “quack” and a “mere pretender of medical knowledge”.
A Practitioner’s Long Battle Amidst Sealed Doors
Santosh Kumar Sharma claimed to have obtained a Vocational Certificate in Community Health from the in 2005 and argued that it entitled him to practice modern scientific medicine. He ran a clinic in Etah, Uttar Pradesh, but landed in trouble when the issued a in demanding his educational records. Despite multiple replies, the CMO remained unconvinced.
In , the clinic was sealed following a that cited several deficiencies. Sharma challenged the sealing in an earlier writ (Writ‑C No.41953 of 2024), and the High Court directed him to submit a detailed representation to the CMO and ordered the officer to decide the matter after a hearing. The CMO ultimately rejected the representation on , noting that Sharma was treating patients with allopathic medicines without registration with the CMO’s office, that his electrohomeopathy degree did not authorize such practice, and that his clinic failed to meet mandatory standards under the —including absence of biomedical waste management, fire NOC, and infection‑control protocols.
Aggrieved, Sharma again rushed to the High Court under , contending that adequate hearing was not afforded and that sealing his establishment violated his to practice a profession under .
The Two Faces of the Argument
Petitioner’s Counsel argued that the complaint was malicious, that Sharma had decades of experience, and that the was bad in law because he was not given a proper opportunity. He leaned heavily on the constitutional guarantee of .
Standing Counsel , representing the State, countered that electrohomeopathy is not modern medicine; Sharma’s certificate could not, by any stretch, authorize him to prescribe allopathic drugs. The State stressed its duty to protect public health from unqualified practitioners, pointing to a series of Government Orders and the Clinical Establishments Act that set clear norms for clinics.
The Legal Wall Between Medical Systems
The court, in its analysis, relied on two seminal precedents. In Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996) 4 SCC 332, it was held that a practitioner of one system of medicine practicing another—especially allopathy—is . In Dr. Mukhtar Chand v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 579, the clarified that a person enrolled on the State Register of Indian Medicine cannot practice modern scientific medicine unless also enrolled on a State Medical Register under the .
Applying these principles, the bench noted that Sharma’s “electrohomeopathy certificate by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a valid degree/diploma entitling him to practice modern medicine (allopath).” The court declared that the right to practice a profession under is not absolute and can be curbed in the interest of public health, citing and .
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment is replete with strong language underscoring the gravity of the issue:
“The health of public at large is the primary responsibility of the State Government. As such, any quack cannot be permitted to play with the health of the general public.”
“A person, who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a quack and a mere pretender of medical knowledge or skill or to put it differently, can be maximum termed a charlatan.”
“It is well settled that a practitioner registered under one system of medicine cannot transgress and practice another system, particularly ‘allopathy’ without requisite qualification and registration, and that doing so amounts to exposing both the practitioner and the public to grave risk.”
“A person can practice in allopathic system of medicine in State or in the country only if he possess a recognized medical qualification.”
A Firm Seal on Quackery
The court dismissed the petition in its entirety, declining to interfere with the CMO’s order. The seal on Sharma’s clinic will remain; he cannot practice allopathy on the strength of an electrohomeopathy certificate. The bench emphasized that the clinic also did not meet the standards mandated by various Government Orders and the Clinical Establishments Act, and that the state had rightly set the criminal law in motion.
The ruling sends a clear message: regulatory measures that bar cross‑system practice are on the right to profession, and courts will not substitute their wisdom for that of expert authorities when public health is at stake. No costs were imposed.
Conclusion
This decision cements the principle that medical practice in Uttar Pradesh—and indeed across India—is not a free‑for‑all. It protects patients from unqualified hands and reinforces that a piece of paper from a parallel system cannot unlock the door to allopathy. For Santosh Kumar Sharma, the clinic doors remain closed, and the line between alternative medicine and modern medicine stays sharply drawn.
