Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 1103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, PREETA A.K., JJ.
The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council, Represented By Its Secretary - Appellant
Versus
Rajesh K., S/o. Govindan O.P. & Ors. - Respondents
W.A.No.1737 of 2020
Decided On : 17-06-2026
For the Appellant : Sri. N. Raghuraj (SR.), Sri. Lal K. Joseph, Sri. P. Muraleedharan (Thuravoor), Smt. T.A. Luxy, Sri. Suresh Sukumar, Sri. Anzil Salim, Shri. Sanjay Sellen.
For the Respondent: Sri. A.T. Anil Kumar, Sri. T.P. Sajid, Senior Government Pleader.
The practice of any medical or clinical profession is not an absolute right and must adhere to governing regulatory statutes and registration requirements to ensure public safety, rejecting the claim of an unregulated, absolute liberty to practice medicine.
Headnote:(A) Legal regulation of professional practice - Medical practice - Statutory registration - Requirement of compliance with regulatory frameworks for health professions - Balancing of individual rights with public safety. (Paras 4, 7).
(B) Constitutional rights of liberty - Scope of professional freedom - Constitutional jurisprudence regarding absolute liberty - Necessity of regulatory oversight to prevent injury to public health - Impact of failure to consider governing laws in previous decisions. (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, citing a diploma in a specific branch of alternative medicine, sought to restrain state authorities from interfering with the practice of that system. The initial decision by the lower court held that in the absence of explicit prohibition, such practice was permissible.
Findings of Court:
The court found that modern practice of any clinical medicine is subject to comprehensive regulatory frameworks. The health and life of the public are prioritized over an individual's claim to unregulated practice. Constitutional rights are not absolute but are limited by duties to the community.
Issues: Whether a specific system of medicine is entirely free from legal regulation and whether an individual can practice it without adhering to official registration processes.
Ratio Decidendi: All medical and clinical care systems are subject to legislative control to ensure professional standards. Such regulation is a necessity for the protection of citizens' life and welfare. Legal precedent that overlooks existing statutory requirements is considered to be decided without proper authority.
Result: Appeal allowed; original petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case background and procedural status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute on whether electro-homeopathy requires statutory medical registration. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. professional practice rights are restricted by patient safety regulations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final ruling holding electro-homeopathy as a regulated medical practice. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council, represented by its Secretary, is the appellant before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.11.2020 in W.P.(C).No.19208 of 2019. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, who claimed to be a practitioner of alternative medicine, and in particular, Electro-Homeopathy, for which he was supposedly qualified by virtue of Ext.P1 diploma certificate obtained by him from the Council of Electro Homeopathic System of Medicine, Kanpur, U.P. It was the case of the 1st respondent in the writ petition that the appellant herein had caused the State and its police machinery to interfere with his practice of Electro-Homeopathy without establishing any illegality on his part in the pursuit of such practice.
2. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, took note of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C).No.19484 of 2008, wherein, in a similar factual situation, the Court had found that in the absence of any material brought to its notice to suggest that the practice of Electropathy/Electro-Homeopathy was prohibited under law, the police could not interfere with the practice of Electropathy carried on by a citizen. The court reasoned that the principle of rule of law mandates that a citizen is free to do anything not prohibited by law, and if a citizen challenges State action, the State had to show the legal pedigree of its action.
3. In the appeal before us, we have heard Adv. Sri. Lal K. Joseph, the learned counsel for the appellant Council and Sri.A.T.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. We have also heard Sri.T.P.Sajid, the learned senior Government Pleader for the official respondent of the State.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the assumption by the learned Single Judge that the practice of Electro- Homeopathy was not regulated by any law is factually incorrect. Referring to the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 that succeeded it in the State of Kerala, he points out that, every person, who is ordinarily engaged in the practice of Homeopathic medicine is subject to the regulatory provisions under the aforesaid enactment. Accordingly, without a registration as envisaged under those enactments and without the name of the practitioner being entered in the list of practitioners published in terms of those enactments, the writ petitioner could not lawfully practice Electro-Homeopathy. He would go on to contend that a mere perusal of the diploma certificate produced by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner as Ext.P1, would reveal that the diploma obtained by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is one that shows him as qualified in the field of Electro-Homeopathic medicine, and hence, the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be heard to contend that his practice in Homeopathic medicine is unregulated.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner would maintain that Electro-Homeopathy is merely a therapy which, like aromatherapy or naturopathy, is not regulated by the Statutes referred to above, and hence, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. He would also rely on the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court that was relied upon by the learned Single Judge, as a precedent to support his contention on merits.
6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that this Writ Appeal must necessarily succeed. At the outset, we might observe that the Division Bench judg
