An applicant seeking enrollment as an advocate must vacate their registration in another profession if the regulatory framework prohibits simultaneous practice, as the continued registration creates a deemed engagement that conflicts with the mandatory declaration required for legal enrollment.

“C.R.”

JUDGMENT

D r. 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 any other profession without the sanction of the Medical Council concerned so long as that person's name continued in the register of “the List of persons in practice”. The learned Judge also noticed that under Section 36 of the 2021 Act, no person other than those registered under the said Act could practise or hold himself out, directly or by implication, as practising any of the fields of medicine mentioned therein including Homeopathy. It was on the said reasoning that the learned Single Judge concluded that the appellant, being a registered medical practit