Homeopathic Doctor Must Cancel Medical Registration Before Enrolling As Advocate: Kerala High Court Upholds Single Judge Decision

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. delivered the judgment while dismissing the appeal against the Single Judge decision.

The appellant, a Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery graduate, had been registered as a homeopathic medical practitioner initially under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and continued her registration under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, which replaced the earlier enactment.

Her name continues to be listed in the “list of persons in practice” maintained in accordance with Section 26 of the 2021 Act. After obtaining an LL.B degree and clearing the All India Bar Examination, she applied for enrolment as an advocate before the Bar Council of Kerala.

The Enrolment Committee deferred consideration of her application on the ground that she had not produced a certificate evidencing cancellation of her registration as a homeopathic practitioner. This was challenged in the writ petition, which was found against the appellant. Hence an appeal was filed against the decision.

The appellant argued that neither the Advocates Act nor the Bar Council rules expressly required cancellation of medical registration as a precondition for enrolment. Reliance was placed on Mohinder Singh Gill and another v The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others [AIR 1978 SC 851], to content that it was not open to the respondents to furnish other reasons for rejecting the application for enrolment, through counter affidavits in the writ petition or during the course of arguments, since the merit of the rejection order had to be considered based solely on the reasons mentioned in the rejection order.

The Court thus examined whether a person whose name continues on the register and statutory list of practising medical practitioners under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 can validly seek enrolment as an advocate without first cancelling such medical registration.

The relevant statutory provisions in the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, Bar Council of India Rules, and Bar Council of Kerala Rules were examined.

The Bench noted that both the legal and medical regulatory regimes discourage simultaneous engagement in the professions of law and medicine. It observed that the objective behind such restrictions is to preserve professional standards and ensure undivided commitment to each profession.

“It will be clear from a perusal of the statutory provisions noticed above, that the statutory scheme under both the regulatory Statutes referred above frowns upon persons carrying on the two professions medical and legal, simultaneously. The apparent object of the said provisions is to ensure maintenance of the highest professional standards in the profession concerned undiluted through a sharing of commitment and dedication with another equally challenging profession.” the Court observed.

The Court observed that merely because one gets a right to practice a profession, it does not follow that he/she is actually 'engaged' in that profession. The Court went on to add that the position would be different, if a person holding a professional qualification, goes further by taking the steps mandated under the regulatory Statutes for the same.

The Court noted that on the reading of the definition of “registered practitioner” and “practitioner” under the 2021 Act, it would imply that a person registered as a medical practitioner under the Act and whose name appears in “the List of persons in practice” virtually holds out to the public at large that she is engaged in the practice of homeopathic medicine.

“Insofar as the appellant's name continued to be shown in the list of persons in medical practice, her application before the enrolment committee of the Kerala Bar Council, seeking enrolment as an Advocate and for including her name in the list of practicing Advocates was not one that could have been considered by the respondent Bar Council without offending the statutory object and express provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder.” the Court added.

The court also rejected the appellant's reliance on Mohinder Singh, which argued that it was not open to the respondents to justify their reasons other than those mentioned in the impugned order.

It observed that the Enrolment Committee had not rejected the application but had merely deferred consideration until cancellation of the medical registration was produced. Since the committee's position was found to be consistent with the governing statutory framework, the challenge could not succeed.

The Bench also relied on Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, which requires an applicant for enrolment to declare that he or she is not engaged in any trade, business or profession.

The appellant had submitted such a declaration stating that she was not practising homeopathy. However, the court held that as long as her name continued in the statutory list of practising medical practitioners, the declaration could not be regarded as factually correct.

“Axiomatically, her application containing such a declaration cannot be seen as a valid one meriting consideration by the respondent Bar Council in terms of Section 26 of the Advocates Act.” the Court said.

The court emphasised that Section 29(2) of 2021 Act provides for a re-registration as a registered medical practitioner if at some time in the future she wishes to give up legal practice and return to homeopathy.

“We see no basis for the apprehension expressed on behalf of the appellant that she may not be permitted to re-register under the 2021 Act once she cancels her present registration. On the contrary, a reading of Sections 29 and 31 of the 2021 Act make it abundantly clear that the appellant has to cancel her registration under that Act, if she intends to take up practice in another profession.” the Court held.

The Court thus dismissed the appeal, and upheld the Single Judge's judgment.

Case Title: T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: WA 1170/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 333

Counsel for Appellant: O. V. Radhakrishnan (Sr.), H. Vishnudas, George Varghese

Counsel for Respondent: P. Ramakrishnan, Preethi Ramakrishnan, Pratap Abraham Varghese, Manojkumar. G, Ashok Menon