Can Electro-Homeopathy Be Practised Without Registration Under Medical Laws? Kerala High Court Answers

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed that the practice of alternative medicine is, in fact, regulated by the provisions of the the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 and before that, by Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953.

“To hold otherwise would be disastrous for the people of this country, for, it is their lives that are at stake. 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 opined.

The 1^st respondent had preferred a writ petition before the Single Judge seeking a declaration that the State, including the police, or the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council cannot interfere with his practice of the alternative medicine of Electro-Homeopathy. He was a holder of a diploma certificate from the Council of Electro Homeopathic System of Medicine, Kanpur, U.P.

The Single Judge had allowed the plea and directed the police not to interfere with the practice unless the petitioner commits any cognizable offence by practicing Electro-Homeopathy. The Single Judge had relied on an earlier decision of the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.19484 of 2008, which had held that Electro-Homeopathy is unregulated.

Against this decision, an appeal was preferred by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council. The appellant contended that the assumption made by the Single Bench that the practice is unregulated by law is incorrect.

It was pointed out that relevant provisions of the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act as well as the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act govern the practice of Homeopathic medicine and if the petitioner does not have a registration as envisaged, he would not be entitled to practice the same.

The petitioner/1^st respondent contended that Electro-Homeopathy is merely a therapy like aromatherapy or naturopathy and would not come within the purview of the afore enactments.

After hearing the parties, the Court held that the Division Bench decision relied upon by the Single Bench cannot be seen as a precedent for the proposition that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is unregulated.

“we cannot find it in ourselves to accept as a general proposition that, in our country, which is governed by a written Constitution, a citizen has an absolute liberty to do anything unless expressly prohibited by law. As is well settled in our constitutional jurisprudence, the concept of absolute liberty is alien to our Constitution, and the protection of rights and liberties thereunder is only of such rights and liberties as remain when balanced against a citizen's corresponding duties and obligations towards fellow citizens,” the Court added.

The Court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Single Judge.

Case No: W.A. No.1737 of 2020

Case Title: The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council v. Rajesh K. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 335

Counsel for the appellants: N. Raghuraj (Sr.), Lal K. Joseph, P. Muraleedharan (Thuravoor), T.A. Luxy, Suresh Sukumar, Anzil Salim, Sanjay Sellen

Counsel for the respondents: A.T. Anil Kumar, T.P. Sajid - Senior Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment