SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, PREETA A.K., JJ.
T.M. Manju - Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of Kerala, Represented By Its Special Secretary/Secretary-In-Charge & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 1170 of 2026
Decided On : 17-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan (SR.), Sri. H. Vishnudas, Sri. George Varghese.
For the Respondent: Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan, Sri. Pratap Abraham Varghese, Sri. Manojkumar G., Sri. Ashok Menon.

A candidate seeking enrolment as an advocate must vacate any pre-existing professional registrations in other fields, as maintaining such status prevents the candidate from providing a truthful declaration of non-engagement in other professions, which is a mandatory statutory precondition for legal practice.

Headnote:(A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Sections 24, 26, 29 - Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Rule 49 - Enrolment as advocate - Statutory prohibition on simultaneous engagement in multiple professions - Requirement to file undertaking regarding non-engagement in other professions - Appellant being registered as medical practitioner, deemed to be engaged in that profession - Insistence on cancellation of prior medical registration as condition precedent for enrolment is legally valid and in conformity with regulatory intent - (Paras 10, 11, 13).

(B) Medical Practitioners Act (State) - Sections 26, 29, 31, 36 - Registered medical practitioner - Disability to follow any other profession - Maintenance of list of practitioners - Registration confers right to practice, and holding such status constitutes a representation of active professional engagement - Cancellation of registration with professional body is mandatory for compliance with declaration requirements for legal practice enrolment. (Paras 11, 13, 14).

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a qualified medical professional, applied for enrolment as an advocate. During the application process, the enrolment committee deferred consideration, requiring the production of a certificate proving the cancellation of the appellant's medical registration. The appellant contended that there was no statutory requirement for such cancellation prior to enrolment and that having a registration did not equated to active practice. A single bench dismissed the writ petition, leading to the current appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the regulatory framework governing both professions prohibits simultaneous professional practice. By maintaining a registration, the applicant effectively holds themselves out as practicing the medical profession, thereby rendering their declaration of non-engagement in any other profession factually inaccurate. The court affirmed that an applicant cannot logically or legally reconcile holding an active medical registration with the undertaking required for legal enrolment.

Issues: The primary issues were whether a professional (medical) registration precludes enrolment as an advocate without cancellation, and whether the respondent authority acted within jurisdiction by insisting upon the cancellation of the medical registration as an enrolment prerequisite.

Ratio Decidendi: Professional regulatory statutes intend to prevent divided commitments between challenging professions. A registered practitioner is deemed engaged in their profession; therefore, a valid application for enrolment as an advocate necessitates the unconditional cancellation of prior professional registrations to satisfy the mandatory declaration of non-engagement in other trades or occupations.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Bar Council required cancellation of the Homeopathic medical registration as a condition for considering enrolment, and the court upheld this requirement (!) (!) . - The applicant’s continued inclusion in the list of practitioners implied engagement in the medical profession, affecting eligibility for enrolment (!) . - The undertaking in Form No.6 states the applicant must declare no current engagement in other professions and must cease practice if employed; the court found the declaration inconsistent where the applicant remains registered in another profession (!) (!) (!) . - The Act and Rules prohibit simultaneous engagement in two professions and require cancellation of the prior registration to enroll as an advocate (!) . - The decision affirmed that cancellation of the existing medical registration is necessary for truthful non-engagement declarations and eligibility (!) (!) . - The appellate court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the lower court’s reasoning that the applicant could not enroll as an advocate while remaining registered in another profession (!) . - The appellant had sought enrolment after obtaining a law degree and passing the bar examination but faced rejection due to non-cancellation of medical registration (!) (!) (!) . - Statutory framework defines "practitioner" and prohibits practicing or holding out in another profession while registered, impacting enrolment (!) (!) (!) .

What is the requirement for cancellation of prior professional registrations before enrolment as an advocate?

What is the effect of holding an active registration in another profession on eligibility for enrolment as an advocate?

What is the role of the undertaking in Form No.6 and how does it impact enrolment when the applicant is still registered in another profession?


Table of Content
1. summary of procedural background and factual basis for enrollment denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6)
2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding regulatory requirements for professional enrollment. (Para 4 , 7 , 8)
3. statutory analysis of concurrent prohibitions against dual medical and legal practice. (Para 5 , 9 , 10)
4. requirement of professional exclusivity as a condition precedent for a valid bar enrollment application. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. dismissal of appeal predicated on the necessity of cancelling prior medical professional registration. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.6893 of 2026 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.05.2026 of a learned Single Judge, dismissing her writ petition.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:

The appellant, who was awarded a Degree of Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery in 2008 by the Kerala University, got herself registered as a medical practitioner in terms of the Travancore- Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. Her registration as such was continued thereafter under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 [hereinafter referred to as the “2021 Act”] that replaced the earlier enactment in the State of Kerala. Pursuant to her registration, she engaged herself in practice as a registered Homeopathic medical practitioner and her name continues to be shown in “the list of persons in practice” maintained in accordance with Section 26 of the 2021 Act.

3. While practicing as a registered Homeopath, the appellant decided to pursue a course in Law. She therefore cancelled the licence issued to her by the local authority to run her Homeopathic clinic and joined a 3 year Unitary LL.B course for the period from 2022 to 2025. After acquiring the LL.B degree, and after clearing the All India Bar Examination, she applied to the Bar Council of Kerala on 17.11.2025 for enrolment as an Advocate. Her application, when referred to the Enrolment Committee for consideration, was not considered by the said Committee because “she had not submitted the cancellation certificate of her Homeopathic registration issued by the Council of Homeopathic Medicine, Kerala State Medical Councils” [Ext.P17 proceedings]. The Committee deferred the consideration of her application to a later date when she was to submit the aforesaid cancellation certificate.

4. Ext.P17 proceedings of the Enrolment Committee was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition inter alia on the contention that neither the Advocates Act nor the Bar Council of India Rules or the Bar Council of Kerala Rules contained any statutory provision that enabled the Bar Council of Kerala to deny her an enrolment simply because she had not cancelled her registration as a Homeopath medical practitioner.

5. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found against the appellant inter alia by relying on the decisions in Bar Council of India v. Mary Tresa and Others - [2006 (2) KLT 210] and Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa - [(1996) 3 SCC 342]. In particular, the learned Judge found that the statutory provisions under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of Kerala Rules required the appellant to submit a declaration to the effect that the appellant was not engaged in any other profession, as part of the application process. According to the learned Single Judge, the appellant's continuation in “the List of persons in practice”, consequent to her continued registration as a Homeopath medical practitioner under the 2021 Act, deemed her to be a person engaged in the medical profession, and accordingly, she would flout the condition of not engaging simultaneously in two professions if she was enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Kerala. The learned Judge also found that even the provisions of the 2021 Act created a disability for a registered medical practitioner against following

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top