Electro-homoeopathy practitioners in Kerala cannot operate outside the State’s medical regulatory framework, the Kerala High Court has ruled, holding that registration under the applicable laws governing homoeopathic practice is mandatory before offering treatment.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. held that electro-homoeopathy falls within the ambit of statutes regulating homoeopathic medicine, namely the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. As a result, practitioners in the discipline must secure registration under these laws to legally practice in the State.
The ruling came while deciding an appeal arising from a dispute involving an electro-homoeopathy practitioner who alleged interference by State authorities. He had argued that electro-homoeopathy was neither prohibited nor specifically governed by any State legislation and, therefore, could be practised without regulatory oversight.
A single-judge Bench had earlier observed that, in the absence of a statutory prohibition, police authorities could not obstruct the practice of electro-homoeopathy. The Division Bench, however, took a different view.
According to the Court, electro-homoeopathy cannot be treated as a separate, unregulated domain merely because it is not expressly mentioned in every statutory provision. The Bench reasoned that practitioners engaged in any branch of homoeopathic medicine are subject to the same regulatory standards intended to safeguard public health.
The judges cautioned that exempting such practitioners from statutory supervision would create serious risks for patients and undermine the purpose of professional regulation in healthcare.
The Court accepted the contention of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council that individuals practising any stream of homoeopathic medicine must comply with registration requirements prescribed by law.
In the process, the Bench also examined an earlier Division Bench decision from 2020 that had been relied upon by the single judge. It concluded that the previous ruling had overlooked relevant statutory provisions and therefore could not be treated as a binding precedent on the question of whether electro-homoeopathy is regulated. The Court described that earlier judgment as having been rendered per incuriam for failing to consider the governing legal framework.
The Bench further rejected the proposition that citizens enjoy unrestricted freedom to engage in any activity unless expressly barred by law. It observed that constitutional freedoms are never absolute and must operate within a structure of rights, duties and statutory obligations.
The judgment emphasised that while the Constitution protects the right to practise a profession or carry on an occupation, that protection remains subject to laws prescribing qualifications, standards and professional conduct. Such regulations, the Court noted, are designed to balance individual professional rights with the public’s entitlement to safe and effective healthcare.
Setting aside the earlier relief granted by the single judge, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council and declared that electro-homoeopathy practitioners are required to comply with the State’s registration regime governing homoeopathic practice.
