The Kerala High Court recently clarified that electro-homeopathy cannot be viewed as an unregulated field and that its practitioners must register under relevant State laws before they can lawfully practice medicine in Kerala [The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council v Rajesh K & ors].
A Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta AK found that the practice of electro-homeopathy is regulated by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021.
Therefore, electro-homoeopathy practitioners must be registered under those enactments to practice in their field, the Court ruled.
The Court passed the ruling in a case concerning an electro-homoeopathy practitioner, who complained that he was facing interference from State authorities. He contended that electro-homoeopathy was neither illegal nor regulated by any State law.
A single judge Bench earlier noted that in the absence of any law prohibiting electro-homeopathy, the police could not interfere with its practice.
A Division Bench of the High Court, however, has now clarified that electro-homeopathy, being a part of homeopathic medicine, is also subject to the regulatory framework governing medical practitioners in the State.
The Court warned that excluding electro-homoeopathy practitioners from statutory regulation could adversely affect public health.
"To hold otherwise would be disastrous for the people of this country, for, it is their lives that are at stake," the Court said.
The Court found merit in the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council's stance that any person practising a branch of Homoeopathic medicine is also subject to registration and regulatory requirements.
The Court also noted that an earlier 2020 Division Bench judgment relied on by the single-judge Bench had rendered its ruling without considering certain prevailing provisions of the law.
The Court, therefore, held that the previous decision could not be treated as a precedent for the proposition that electro-homoeopathy is unregulated. It ruled that the earlier Division Bench was per incuriam for having failed to notice the governing laws.
The Court also disagreed with the single judge's observation that citizens could enjoy absolute liberty to do anything unless it is prohibited by law.
In its June 17 ruling, the Court held that there is no such thing as absolute freedom in the Constitution of India, because rights and freedom must always be balanced against corresponding duties and obligations.
"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," the Court said.
Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal filed in the matter by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council against the single-judge ruling, and declared that the practice of electro-homoeopathy is regulated by the State laws governing homoeopathy.
Senior counsel N Raghuraj along with advocates Lal K Joseph, P Muraleedharan, TA Luxy, Suresh Sukumar, Anzil Salim and Sanjay Sellen appeared for the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council.
Advocate AT Anil Kumar appeared for an electro-homoeopathy practitioner, Rajesh.
Senior government pleader TP Sajid appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]