Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 35269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Preeta A.K., JJ
Travancore-Cochin Medical Council – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh K. – Respondent
W.A.NO.1737 OF 2020|W.P(C).NO.19208 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Raghuraj, Lal K. Joseph, P. Muraleedharan, T.A. Luxy, Suresh Sukumar, Anzil Salim, Sanjay Sellen
For the Respondents: A.T. Anil Kumar, T.P. Sajid
The practice of Electro-Homeopathy constitutes a branch of Homeopathic medicine and is thus subject to regulation under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, and is not an unregulated profession.
Headnote:The case concerns the legality of the practice of Electro-Homeopathy, specifically whether such practice is exempt from regulation under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. The appellant, a statutory medical council, appealed a lower court decision that had permitted a practitioner of Electro-Homeopathy to conduct practice due to the lack of evidence of explicit prohibition. The court examined the statutory landscape governing medical practices and the extent of professional rights under the Constitution. The central issue was whether the absence of explicit prohibition renders a medical therapy unregulated. The court held that the previous reliance on the 'liberty to do anything not prohibited by law' was in error, noting that such a view failed to account for statutory obligations and constitutional jurisprudence where professional rights are subject to regulation in the public interest. The court found that because Electro-Homeopathy is a branch of Homeopathic medicine, it falls under the purview of existing medical statutes requiring registration. In the final result, the Writ Appeal was allowed, the writ petition was dismissed, and the court declared that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is governed by the relevant medical practitioners' statutes.
“C.R.”
JUDGMENT
Dr. 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 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.19484 of 2008, that was relied upon by the learned Single Judge, cannot be seen as a precedent for the proposition that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is unregulated. Firstly, we find from a perusal of the said judgment that it proceeded to decide the lis before it in the absence of any material produced by t
