Doctor Can't Enrol As Advocate Unless Registration As Medical Practitioner Is Cancelled : Kerala High Court

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment while dismissing a challenge against the Bar Council of Kerala's refusal to enrol a Homoeopathic doctor as an advocate while her name continued in the register of medical practitioners.

The petitioner, while practicing homeopathy, decided to pursue a course in law. After cancelling her practice licence issued by the local authority to run her homeopathic clinic, the petitioner underwent a three year Unitary LL.B course.

The petitioner acquired the law degree and cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). She applied to the Bar Council of Kerala on 17-11- 2025 for enrollment as an advocate. On physical verification of documents, the Bar Council noticed that the cancellation certificate as Homoeo Doctor was not uploaded in the portal and this was communicated to the petitioner.

Pursuant to the communication, the petitioner filed an affidavit stating the licence to the clinic issued by the Municipality has been cancelled and she had not practiced Homeopathy from the date of such cancellation. An undertaking was also submitted before the Bar Council informing that she will not engage in the medical profession simultaneously and that if she decides to practice medicine, she will inform the Bar and suspend her enrolment.

Despite the submission of the undertaking and her personal hearing, the petitioner did not receive any reply and when she verified the list of candidates to be enrolled, she found her name was absent from the list for January 2026.

The petitioner thus approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings of the enrollment committee which decided to consider her enrolment application only after she cancels her registration as a medical practitioner.

The petitioner argued that the restrictions against simultaneous professional practice apply only after enrolment as an advocate and not at the threshold stage. She contended that Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which prescribes qualifications for enrolment, did not require cancellation of medical registration.

The Bar Council submitted that it has a duty to ensure that an applicant for enrolment is not engaged in any other profession. Reliance was also placed on Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 to point out that those statutes also restrict the right of a person from pursuing another profession at the same time.

The Court examined the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979. The Court noted that Section 24 of the Act requires the fulfilment of conditions specified in the rules made by the State Bar Councils in addition to requirement of citizenship, minimum age and a degree in law.

Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, requires an applicant to declare that they are not engaged in any trade, business or profession.

The Court noted that in Carew and Co. v Union of India [(1975) 2 SCC 791], the term 'engaged' has been interpreted to mean a person who has right to involve himself or embark upon a profession, he has to be regarded as engaged in that profession.

The Court further noted that when an applicant for enrolment has a right to practice the profession of medicine and has his name registered in the State Rolls as a medical practitioner, it will be practically impossible to identify whether he is actually practicing such a profession or not and even whether he is earning any remuneration from such a profession.

“Hence, the term 'engaged in any profession', as envisaged in Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of BCK Rules has to be interpreted as being entitled to or having a right to pursue another profession with the possibility of earning a remuneration.” Court added.

The Court observed that continued inclusion in the medical register entitled the petitioner “as of right” to practise Homoeopathy and therefore she could not truthfully declare that she was not engaged in another profession.

“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 said.

The Court thus held that Bar Council has the authority to deny a candidate the permission to enrol as an Advocate, if it has materials to believe that the applicant has a right to practice another profession and is listed in the register for another profession.

The Court added that even though a citizen has a fundamental right to practice any profession, the said right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa [(1996) 3 SCC 342], where it upheld restrictions on simultaneous practice of medicine and law.

“When a profession is governed by statutory prescriptions, the right to practice or giving up of such right, are all matters which will have to be carried out as per the statutory provisions.” Court added.

The Court also referred to Section 31(2) of the 2021 Act, which bars a registered medical practitioner from following another profession without sanction from the medical council concerned.

The Court thus held that as long as the petitioner's name remained on the medical register, the law presumed her to be a registered practitioner entitled to practise medicine. The Court held that mere closure of a clinic or cessation of actual practice was insufficient because the statutory entitlement to practise continued.

“Albeit the petitioner's undertaking that she is not practicing the profession of medicine, the requirement of the rules of the Bar Council of Kerala and that of the MP Act 2021 will not be satisfied in the facts of the present case.” Court observed.

The Court thus concluded that a registered Homoeopathic practitioner can lawfully be denied enrolment as an advocate unless the medical registration is cancelled.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

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

Case No: WP(C) 6893/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273

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

Counsel for Respondent: M. U. Vijayalakshmi, K. Jaju Babu (Sr.)