Unqualified practitioners of alternative medicine cannot lawfully practice based on unrecognized certificates.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has sought for the following main reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records relating to Ext-P6 order/communication 01.07.2021, D/16244/2018/MC/ISM issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. dated (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions commanding the 1^st respondent to refrain from all modes of disruption to preach and practice acupuncture by the petitioner.

(iii) Declare the petitioner is entitled to preach, train and practice Acupuncture as an alternative therapy/treatment.”

2. Petitioner claims to be a qualified Acupuncturist, who is running an Acupuncture Centre under the name ‘Indian Acupuncture Academy’.

3. By Ext.P6 communication dated 01.07.2021, petitioner was directed not to conduct any Acupuncture treatment at its establishment.

4. According to the petitioner, he is qualified and skilled in Naturaopathy and Yoga and has also obtained a Masters Diploma in Acupuncture therapy, issued by Bharat Sevak Samaj, as evident from Ext.P1. Petitioner further contends that Acupuncture being an alternative form of medicine, the certificate obtained by him from Bharat Sevak Samaj as well as his experience for the last several years entitles him to practice the said alternative system of medicine.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Central Council of Indian Medicine and Others v. State of Kerala and Ohers (2020 KHC 759).

6. Having heard the respective counsel, I am of the view that, in the light of the decision in Central Council of Indian Medicine and Others, the unqualified practitioners of Naturopathy and other alternative system of medicine cannot continue their practice, after coming into force of the Central Act of 1970 as well as the guidelines issued thereunder. In the said judgment, after noticing that the alternative system of medicine being practiced by various persons, either based on Government orders or otherwise were all unconstitutional and that even the orders issued by the State Government framing certain guidelines for such practices were contrary to law. The Court further ruled that all courses offering certificates or diplomas were unrecognized and unauthentic, and that practitioners of alternative medicine were not entitled to practice, based on such diplomas or certificates.

Petitioner’s claim to be entitled to practice Acupuncture on the basis of Ext.P1 certificate cannot be stated to be a qualified or recognised practice under law. Hence, the impugned communication Ext.P6, does not warrant any interference.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-