'We Can't Legislate, Let Govt Decide': Kerala High Court On Use Of 'Dr.' Prefix By Physiotherapists

The Indian Medical Association and the Indian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (IAPMR) have moved an appeal before the Kerala High Court challenging a Single Bench decision permitting physiotherapists and doctors to use the 'Dr.' prefix.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan on Monday (February 23) orally remarked that it is not up to the Court to make a decision as to whether medical professionals or physiotherapists can use the prefix 'Dr.' and the same has to be decided by the government or the legislature.

"You have to get the Act amended. We cannot legislate sitting here. You make a representation to the government. We can't legislate. Legislation is the jurisdiction of the legislature...Let them decide. That is the only step. Step-by-step, we have to go. Whatever they decide, you can challenge that. Or show us any provision how doctors are permitted to affix 'Dr.' before their name. Our hands are tied. We can't do anything...This Court, in any case, cannot decide whether you can prefix 'Dr.' or not prefix...It is better let the government take a decision...You can all file additional representations also. Can be disposed of. If you agree, we will dispose it of. And let them do it in a time-bound manner...We can't do anything, we can't legislate, we can't declare that you can affix 'Dr.' It is for the government or legislature to do it...After they decide, whatever they decide, it will be open for anybody to challenge it," the Bench orally remarked.

When the appeals came up for admission today, Senior Advocate Mayankutty Mather appearing for the appellants argued that neither the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Profession Act, 2021 (NCAHP Act) nor its Schedule permits physiotherapists and occupational therapists to use the prefix 'Dr.' and it is only a Curriculum for physiotherapists that permit the usage.

Hearing the arguments canvased, Justice Dharmadhikari orally asked the counsel to point to the provision that permits medical doctors to use 'Dr.' prefix:

"There must be some enabling provision to prefix...Show us any provision where Dr. is allowed to be prefixed. And whether this will be applicable to them, these persons? [Physiotherapists] That is the issue. Otherwise, earlier days, even though physicians were not called doctors, only persons who were teaching were called doctors. Now slowly, the physicians also came to be known as doctors."

The senior counsel for the appellant agreed that the present scenario is such that medical doctors are not permitted to use 'Dr.' as prefix whereas physiotherapists and occupational therapists, who only act on the advice of medical doctors get to use the prefix. This, according to him, would have far-reaching consequences since MBBS, MD doctors, cardiologists, nephrologists, neurologists, cannot use 'Dr.'.

The senior counsel then brought to the notice of the Court a notification issued by the Director General of Health Services under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated September 9, 2025 wherein it was stated that physiotherapists cannot use the prefix 'Dr'. However, since the notification was withdrew the very next day stating that further deliberations are required, the Court felt that it is upon the government to take a decision in this regard:

"Let them take a decision. Without there being any decision, we cannot, you know, deal with these matters like this. Competent authority is the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, who has to take a call and decide that...They can always amend. They can always place it before the legislature. For consideration, deliberation....objections are invited, suggestions are invited. That is the way. Courts can't declare what is not provided in the Act itself."

The Court then asked if the matters can be disposed of with a direction to the government to take a decision in this regard.

The matter is posted to March 3 (Monday) after the senior counsel appearing for the appellants sought time to get instructions from the parties.

The appeals are moved by Advocates Mayankutty Mather (Sr.), S. Parvathi, T.K. Sreekala, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan, K.G. Anil.

Case No: WA 437/ 2026 and connected cases

Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India and connected cases