The Kerala High Court has recently mandated that practitioners of electro-homeopathy must be registered under pertinent state legislation to legally practice medicine within Kerala. This decision came as a result of the case The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council v Rajesh K & Ors, where a Division Bench comprised of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta AK clarified the regulatory framework surrounding electro-homeopathy.
The Court determined that electro-homeopathy is governed by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, effectively categorizing it under regulated medical practices. Consequently, practitioners in this field must adhere to these statutes and register accordingly.
In this case, an electro-homeopathy practitioner had alleged undue interference by State authorities, arguing that the field was neither illegal nor regulated. Previously, a single-judge bench had opined that in the absence of prohibitory legislation, the police had no authority to interfere with electro-homeopathy practices. However, the Division Bench overturned this notion, emphasizing that electro-homeopathy falls under the broader category of homeopathic medicine, which is subject to state regulation.
The Court underscored the potential public health risks of allowing unregistered practices, asserting, “To hold otherwise would be disastrous for the people of this country, for, it is their lives that are at stake.” It supported the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council’s view that all branches of homeopathic medicine require registration and compliance with regulatory standards.
Moreover, the Court highlighted the oversight in a 2020 Division Bench ruling, which the single-judge bench had relied upon, as it failed to consider existing legal provisions. This oversight rendered the previous ruling per incuriam, meaning it could not be used as a precedent to suggest that electro-homeopathy is unregulated.
More Read
The Court further dismissed the single-judge’s assertion of absolute freedom under the law, clarifying that the Constitution of India does not support unfettered liberties. Instead, it balances rights with corresponding duties and obligations. The ruling stated, “While a citizen is guaranteed a fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business, that right is by no means absolute in nature. It is subject to laws regulating professional qualification and conduct that are enacted with a view to balancing the rights of the professional concerned with the right to life and proper healthcare of persons who receive medical care and treatment.”
As a result, the Court upheld the appeal by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council, annulling the single-judge’s decision and affirming that electro-homeopathy practice is indeed regulated by state laws concerning homeopathy.
Senior Counsel N Raghuraj, along with advocates Lal K Joseph, P Muraleedharan, TA Luxy, Suresh Sukumar, Anzil Salim, and Sanjay Sellen, represented the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council. Advocate AT Anil Kumar appeared for the electro-homeopathy practitioner, Rajesh, while Senior Government Pleader TP Sajid represented the State.
