Back
Supreme Court Dismisses 'Liver Doctor' Plea Against Arsenicum Album 30 as Withdrawn
The on , a filed by Dr. Cyriac Abby Philips—popularly known as 'The Liver Doctor'—that challenged the ’s guidelines permitting the administration of the homoeopathic medicine Arsenicum Album 30 as a prophylactic against COVID-19. The withdrawal, communicated via a letter dated , from the petitioner’s counsel, brought a four-year legal battle to a close without any .
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana took note of the withdrawal letter and dismissed the petition. When the matter was called out, informed the Court of the petitioner’s request. , appearing for the , strongly criticised the petitioner’s conduct, alleging that Dr. Philips had made statements against the Court and the judiciary, describing the conduct as “very serious” and “very .” Justice Bagchi, however, responded: “Nothing bothers us. You don't bother yourself. Assist us to administer justice. That is the only focus.” The Court then dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Background: A Four-Year Legal Challenge
The petition, originally filed in 2021 as , sought to declare the ’s guidelines, advisories, and fact sheets—issued on —as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of . These guidelines allowed state governments to prescribe Arsenicum Album 30 as a homoeopathic immunity booster, including mass distribution to children and elderly persons above 65 years of age.
Dr. Philips had earlier approached the , which granted him to make a representation to the state government. After that remedy proved ineffective, he moved the Supreme Court. In , the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the ’s order, but in , a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose issued on the main petition to the Union , the , and the . In , the Court again sought responses, questioning the scientific basis of the guidelines.
Petitioner’s Rationale: Lost Faith in Judiciary
In a detailed post on X (formerly Twitter) after the withdrawal, Dr. Philips explained that the decision was not due to threats or because the Ayush ministry had provided credible evidence. “This was not because we were threatened. This was not because Ayush (Center or State) provided us proper evidence to shut us up. This was not because Homeopathy works,” he wrote. Instead, he stated bluntly: “I have lost faith in the judiciary system” and acknowledged that “sometimes, justice is delayed, to deny it.”
Philips elaborated that the responses from the Centre and state Ayush departments arrived three years after the petition was filed. “The response from the State and Center Ayush departments were idiotic, nauseating, ad-hominem and utterly rubbish, it was an insult to our intelligence,” he claimed. A homoeopathy group from Kerala impleaded and submitted an affidavit that he described as “pure ad-hominem.” According to Philips, the case became “” because it pertained to COVID-19 interventions that the Court now found “no value in reasoning with.” He was advised to start a fresh petition against the current Ayush guidelines, but lacked the funds and legal resources.
Scientific Questions Left Unanswered
At the heart of the petition lay a fundamental question: Why was Arsenicum Album 30 —a preparation derived from arsenic—administered on a mass scale, particularly to children, without proof of safety or efficacy? Dr. Philips pointed out that the Ayush ministry’s own justification was contradictory: either the medicine contained nothing and was thus useless, or it contained arsenic and was given without evidence of benefit or safety. “Answering this core question would have thrown Homeopathy out of this country,” he wrote.
The petition cited a 2021 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study published in the journal Homeopathy , which evaluated Arsenicum Album 30C in a quarantined population of nearly 2,300 persons and found “no benefits, usefulness or effectiveness” in preventing COVID-19. Despite this, the guidelines were issued without any completed clinical trials. The petition argued that the failure to conduct repurposing studies rendered the guidelines arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Impact on Legal and Public Health Discourse
The withdrawal has sparked debate within the legal and medical communities. While the criticised Dr. Philips’ conduct, the Court itself declined to take umbrage. The case underscores the tension between traditional medicine systems and evidence-based regulation under . In a separate proceeding in August 2026, the Supreme Court had noted that homoeopathic medicines must be clinically tested before mass administration, but declined to examine the continued use in that case.
Dr. Philips has announced plans to file a fresh targeting homoeopathic use among children and calling for an end to government funding of homoeopathy. He has appealed for citizen funding to support the legal battle. “We want to work on it… lay the strongest foundation and fight pseudoscience, not just through medical communication, but also through legal channels,” he stated.
Conclusion
The dismissal of Dr. Cyriac Abby Philips’ petition leaves unresolved the constitutional and scientific questions surrounding the mass administration of Arsenicum Album 30 during the pandemic. While the petitioner has stepped back for now, his stated intention to return with a stronger challenge ensures that the debate over the regulation of homoeopathic medicines in India is far from over. The Supreme Court’s refusal to engage with the merits, and its restrained response to criticism, highlight the delicate balance between judicial administration and public health advocacy.
