The Kerala High Court on Monday held that a registered Homeopathic practitioner cannot be enrolled as an advocate unless her registration as a medical practitioner is cancelled. [TM Manju v Bar Council of Kerala & ors].Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas upheld the Bar Council of Kerala's (BCK) decision to cancel her enrolment, and held that the bar body's insistence was only to ensure that a person enrolled as an advocate does not pursue two professions at the same time.The Court clarified that legal professionals cannot divide loyalty between two professions and continuing with the right to practice medicine while entering the legal profession would only affect a person's commitment to both fields. "A professional cannot share his/her allegiance with another profession. Such sharing of loyalty can lead to compromising of values of each profession and even result in having to serve two ‘masters’ at the same time. Splitting the professional soul between two masters can lead to losing focus in both professions. Such divided loyalty cannot be countenanced in the profession of law as the said profession has often been stated to be a jealous mistress," the Court added..The petitioner, TM Manju, had been practising as a Homoeopathic doctor before pursuing a 3 year LLB course. After clearing the All India Bar Examination, she applied for enrolment before the Bar Council of Kerala in November 2025.During verification of documents, the council found that she had not produced the certificate showing cancellation of her registration as a homeopathic practitioner.Manju informed the council that she had already cancelled the municipal license issued for running her clinic and also submitted an undertaking stating that she would not practice medicine after enrolment as an advocate.She also stated that if she ever decided to return to the medical profession, she would inform the council and suspend her enrolment as an advocate.But the council denied her permission to enrol.Aggrieved, Manju approached the Court seeking to quash the proceedings before the enrolment committee and a declaration to be enrolled as an advocate..Manju's counsel argued that the Advocates Act of 1961 does not require cancellation of medical registration before enrolment. He added that the Bar Council of Kerala Rules of 1979 (1979 Rules), which regulate simultaneous professions, would apply only after she enrols as an advocate and not at the entry stage.She also claimed that denial of enrolment violates her fundamental right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.The Bar Council of Kerala submitted that cancellation of the clinic's license alone was insufficient since her name continued to be in the register of medical practitioners under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021.It was argued that Rule 2(h) of Chapter 5 of the 1979 Rules require that every applicant seeking enrolment as an advocate must declare that they are not engaged in any trade business or profession. However, the petitioner continued to remain on the register of medical practitioners..The Court accepted the council's stand and held that as long as the petitioner's name remained in the register of medical practitioners, she continued to poses the legal right to practice medicine and mere cancellation of the license to run a clinic would not be sufficient to enrol as a lawyer.The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Dr Haniraj L. Chulani v Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, wherein it was held that advocate cannot simultaneously practice another profession, particularly medicine, as the legal profession required full-time dedication, the Court dismissed the petition."In view of the above discussion, it has to be concluded that a registered medical practitioner of Homoeopathy can be denied permission to enrol as an Advocate unless the registration as a Homoeopath is cancelled," the Court held..Senior counsel OV Radhakrishnan appeared for the petitioner along with advocates H Vishnudas and George Varghese.Senior Counsel Jaju Babu appeared for the Bar Council of Kerala along with advocates MU Vijayalakshmi and Manikandan S Kandathil. .[Read Judgment]
