The State's registration of unqualified practitioners for Naturopathy and Yoga is unconstitutional, contradicting Central regulations.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents to refrain from interfering in any manner with the practice of Naturopathy and Yoga Therapy by them not to harass them in their practice of the said discipline. A further direction is sought to take steps to provide Class B registration to the petitioners.

2. Petitioners claim that they are qualified hands, entitled to practice Naturopathy and Yoga, which are Alternative Systems of Medicine. Petitioners claim to have qualified in Naturopathy and Yoga Therapy from the Akhil Bharatiya Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad, which is stated to be a Government controlled association. Petitioners also claim that they have considerable experience in the practice of the specialised fields of Naturopathy and Yoga. Some of the petitioners claim that they have obtained Diploma in Naturopathy and Yoga Therapy from the Department of Adult and Continuing Education of MG University. According to the petitioners, despite all the qualifications obtained by them, they have been denied registration to practice Naturopathy and Yoga, and as per Exhibit P17 Government Order dated 28.02.2011, they are entitled to obtain provisional B class registration which has been denied to them.

-: 8:-

3. Though no counter affidavit has been filed, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the issue raised for consideration is regarding the correctness of the various Government Orders permitting registration of Ayurveda and Yoga practitioners who had obtained certificates from MG University as well as Diploma from Akhil Bharatiya Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad, New Delhi. The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that the said issue has already been the subject matter of a decision by Division Bench of this Court in Central Council of Indian Medicine and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 KHC 759]. It was pointed out that the Government Orders were found to be not legally valid.

4. I have heard Smt. V. Shylaja, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Smt. Amminikutty K., and Sri. Sreejith V. S., the learned Senior Government Pleaders.

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 by the State, providing registration to unqualified practitioners of Naturopathy and other Alternative Medicines were in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, 1970, orders of the Government of India apart from the guidelines specified therein, and was therefore, declared as unconstitutional. It was further declared that the Orders issued by the State Government exempting registration for unqualified Naturopaths and other -: 9:-

Alternative Medicines are without authority and were 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 the power to frame such guidelines and also did not have any enabling power to issue an order directing registration of the name of an unqualified practitioner in class ‘A’ or ‘B’ register.

6. While dealing with the issue relating to Naturopathic and Yoga Practitioners, the Division Bench referred to the communication of the National Institute of Naturopathy that the Government of India had recognized the medical registration and appointments of only N.D (Hyderabad) and BNYS degree (Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yoga Sciences) as the required qualification of Naturopathy, and all other courses, offering certificates of diploma were unrecognised and unauth