Holders of Electrohomeopathy certificates are not entitled to practice modern scientific medicine or allopathy.

The petitioner, holding a Vocational Certificate (Community Health) and a certificate/diploma in Electrohomeopathy, operated a clinic/hospital in Etah

Following a show-cause notice regarding deficiencies and lack of valid medical credentials, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) sealed the clinic

The petitioner previously approached the High Court in Writ-C No. 41953 of 2024, which directed the CMO to decide the petitioner's representation

On 16.02.2026, the CMO rejected the representation, finding that the petitioner was practicing Allopathy without registration or requisite qualifications

Furthermore, the clinic failed to meet standards regarding fire safety, biomedical waste management, and infection control

The petitioner challenged this rejection, seeking a mandamus to permit him to practice modern medicine

1. Whether a person holding a certificate in Electrohomeopathy is legally entitled to practice modern scientific medicine (Allopathy).

2. Whether the sealing of the clinic violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, which restrict the practice of modern medicine to those enrolled on the State Medical Register

Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996), establishing that practicing a system of medicine without requisite qualification constitutes negligence per se

Dr. Mukhtar Chand v. State of Punjab (1998), which held that practitioners of Indian medicine cannot prescribe Allopathic drugs unless expressly permitted by statute

Article 19(6) of the Constitution, noting that the right to practice a profession is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health, as affirmed in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005)

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s Electrohomeopathy certificate does not qualify as a recognized medical degree for Allopathic practice

It categorized the petitioner as a "quack" or "charlatan" for attempting to treat patients in a system of medicine for which he lack formal training

The court emphasized that the State has a primary duty to protect public health from unqualified practitioners

Applying the "harmonious reading" of medicial statutes from Mukhtar Chand, the court found that since the petitioner was not registered with the CMO as a medical practitioner, his practice was in direct conflict with the law

Regarding the clinic's closure, the court noted several regulatory failures, including the absence of a fire NOC and biomedical waste systems, concluding that these safety standards are legitimate, proportionate restrictions on the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g)

The court held that it cannot substitute its wisdom for that of expert authorities when a petitioner fails to meet statutory medical standards

The writ petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made