Back
Homeopathy Hope: Gujarat HC Shields Students from Approval Battle Fallout
In a student-centric ruling, the has directed the to grant letters of permission (LOPs), practice licenses, and other approvals to Homeopathy colleges and their graduates from the academic year. Justice Nirzar S. Desai allowed a batch of led by , emphasizing that innocent students—who completed their Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) courses under court-protected —cannot bear the brunt of bureaucratic disputes.
The decision validates degrees for hundreds of graduates, ensuring they can register and practice, even as broader legal questions on regulatory powers remain open.
Roots of the Regulatory Rift
The saga began in 2016 when several Gujarat-based Homeopathy colleges, including Parul University's Jawaharlal Nehru Homeopathic Medical College, sought extension of approvals for the BHMS intake. New had replaced older norms, mandating upgrades by .
The
conducted inspections (e.g.,
, for Parul) and issued favorable reports, recommending approvals:
"sufficient facilities. Recommended for admission for
."
However, the
followed with its own inspections (e.g.,
) and refused extensions, citing non-compliance under
.
Petitions challenged these refusals, leading to a , interim order by a coordinate bench permitting admissions up to existing capacities (e.g., 100 seats at Parul), with deadlines extended to . This was upheld by a in , allowing colleges to function and students to graduate.
As news reports highlighted, students faced a limbo: degrees in hand but no path to practice without formal LOPs.
Petitioners Push Back: Existing Colleges Deserve Continuity
Represented by Senior Advocate D.C. Dave and , petitioners argued Section 12A applies only to new institutions, courses, or intake increases—not routine extensions for established colleges compliant per CCH inspections. They cited moratoriums granted by AYUSH (2013-16) for upgrades and similar interim reliefs from .
Crucially, students admitted under court orders had finished their courses; denying final approvals would ruin careers through no fault of theirs. Precedents like were distinguished as inapplicable to Homeopathy.
Ministry's Stance: Standards Over Sympathy
AYUSH, via Advocates Sushil Shukla and , defended its authority under Section 12A to enforce 2013 Regulations strictly post-moratorium. required full compliance by 2014 for ongoing admissions. Ministry inspections revealed deficiencies, overriding CCH views. They referenced a pending Amendment Bill to explicitly empower annual approvals but opposed mercy for non-compliant colleges.
Yet, respondents conceded students—unimpleaded in petitions—would suffer most if relief was denied.
Court's Equitable Edge: Power Play
Justice Desai dissected
Section 12A
,
limiting it to
"establishment of new medical institution"
or "new/higher courses/increase in capacity," not yearly extensions for running colleges. CCH's favorable reports carried weight, while AYUSH's parallel inspections seemed overreach.
Noting a Attorney General opinion (echoed in the Amendment Bill's objects) that no provision barred ongoing admissions, the court prioritized equity. Prior interim reliefs (confirmed in ) had enabled completions; reversing now would penalize students unaware of litigation.
Citing and related SLPs dismissed by the , the bench endorsed continuity.
"ultimately, the sufferers would be the students, who are not before the Court"
Spotlight Quotes from the Judgment
-
On student plight
:
"the ultimate sufferers in the event of dismissal of the petitions would be the students who have already undergone and successfully completed the course."
-
Regulatory scope
:
"on a
interpretation of Section 12A... in its ambit does not cover the aspect of extension of approval to the existing course."
-
Equity mandate
:
"keeping in mind the larger interest of the students who have already passed out... necessary directions are required to be issued to the respondents to grant the LOP... as well as license to practice Homeopathy."
Victory for Students, Penalty for Petitioners
The court allowed all petitions, directing AYUSH/CCH to issue LOPs, licenses, and
"all other consequential permissions... as if such permissions had been granted at the relevant point of time,"
validating
degrees.
However, slamming petitioners for not joining students as parties—
"who may not even be aware of such pending litigation"
—it imposed
Rs. 25,000 costs per petition
to the
within eight weeks.
"all these petitions are allowed.to the aforesaid extent... all legal issues are kept open."
This nuanced order protects futures without settling if AYUSH holds sway over extensions, potentially influencing similar disputes in AYUSH streams amid ongoing reforms.
