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

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The court answered both issues in the negative, holding that an Electrohomeopathy certificate confers no right to practice Allopathy and that the clinic's sealing was a valid exercise of regulatory power for public health

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

¶ 2, 3(i)

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

¶ 3(ii)-(v)

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

¶ 3(iii)

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

¶ 3(v)

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

¶ 3(vii)

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

¶ 2

02Issues

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

¶ 6, 9

ii.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.

¶ 5, 14

03Law Applied

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

¶ 12

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

¶ 8

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

¶ 8, 12

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)

¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 Section 15

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 Section 17

04Reasoning

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

¶ 9

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

¶ 11

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

¶ 7

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

¶ 12-13

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)

¶ 3(vii), 14