Denial of registration for unqualified practitioners under the existing regulations is upheld.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P1 to Exhibit-P14 and also seeks for a declaration that he is competent to be granted ‘A’ class registration for practicing Naturopathy and Yoga treatment. A further direction is sought for, to direct the first respondent to grant ‘A’ class provisional registration to the petitioner till the constitution of a separate Council for Naturopathy and Yoga and also to take steps to include Naturopathy and Yoga treatment as Indian System of Medicine under the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 .

2. Petitioner claimed to have completed his SSLC in the year

2001 and joined for Diploma in Naturopathy and Yogic Science at Akhil Bharathiya Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad and completed the said course in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, the said course was approved by the Government as per G.O.(P) No.116/2010/H & FWD dated 17.03.2010. Petitioner also alleges that the first respondent Council had accorded sanction to provide provisional ‘A’ class registration to qualified Naturopaths who satisfy certain specified conditions. Later, petitioner joined for Diploma in Naturopathy and Yogic Science (DNYS), conducted by the Department of Adult Education, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, in 2010 and was issued Exhibit-P4 certificate. Petitioner alleges that he thereafter underwent an internship at Dr. Aji’s Santhigiri Naturopathy and Ayurvedic Clinic and also in the meantime, completed Diploma in Herbal Medicine Science from Bharat Sevak Samaj. According to the petitioner, despite all the qualifications, by Exhibit-P12 order, he was denied ‘A’ class registration. Hence, he has approached this Court challenging all the orders declining his registration as a Naturoathy and Yoga Practitioner.

3. I have heard Sri. Sivan Madathil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Manu Govind, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, Sri. A. Rajagopalan, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent as well as Sri. Sreejith V. S., the learned Government Pleader.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader invited the attention of this Court to the judgment in Central Council of Indian Medicine and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 KHC 759] and submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner are already decided by the aforesaid judgment. It was also submitted that W.P(C).No.17507 of 2011 referred to in Exhibit-P12 has been finally decided in the above-cited decision, and therefore, petitioner cannot raise any argument contrary to the said judgment.

5. On a perusal of the decision in Central Council of Indian Medicine (Supra), it is noticed that the Division Bench of this Court had held that the Government orders issued, providing registration to unqualified practitioners of Naturopathy and other Alternative Medicines were in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, 1970, order of the Government of India apart from the guidelines specified therein, and was therefore, declared as unconstitutional. It was further declared that the Government Orders issued exempting registration for unqualified Naturopaths and other Alternative Medicines, stood quashed. While arriving at the above said conclusion, the Division Bench had observed that the guidelines framed by the Government of India were not followed by the State, and instead it framed its own guidelines, assuming that it had the power to frame guidelines of its own. It was held that the State Government did not have th