Registration as a Medical Practitioner must be cancelled to qualify for enrolment as an Advocate.

The petitioner, a registered medical practitioner of Homoeopathy, completed a three-year LL.B. course (2022-2025) and passed the All India Bar Examination

Upon applying for enrolment as an Advocate in November 2025, the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) directed her to upload a certificate evidencing the cancellation of her registration as a Homoeo Doctor

Although the petitioner had closed her clinic and surrendered her municipal license in 2022, she refused to cancel her professional registration as a doctor, arguing that she might wish to return to medicine later

She provided an undertaking in Form No. 6 stating she would not practice medicine simultaneously with law

The BCK Enrolment Committee resolved to consider her application only after she produced a cancellation certificate from the Homoeopathic Council

The petitioner challenged this as being arbitrary and a violation of her right to practice a profession

1. Whether a registered medical practitioner can be denied enrolment as an Advocate unless they first cancel their registration in the medical profession

2. Whether the restriction on enrolment applies at the pre-entry stage or only after an individual has officially enrolled as an Advocate

Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which prescribes qualifications for enrolment, including compliance with rules made by State Bar Councils

Rule 2(h), Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, which requires a declaration that the applicant is not "engaged in any trade, business or profession"

Sections 30, 31(2), and 36 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners (MP) Act, 2021, which prohibits a registered practitioner from following any other profession without Council sanction as long as their name remains in the medical register

The precedent in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, which established that the legal profession is a full-time occupation and the Bar Council can validly prohibit "riding two horses" simultaneously

The Court reasoned that the term "engaged" in Rule 2(h) of the BCK Rules includes having the "right to involve himself" or "embark upon" a profession

As long as the petitioner’s name is on the medical register, she holds a statutory right to practice medicine under the MP Act, 2021; thus, she is "engaged" in that profession regardless of whether she is actively seeing patients

The Court rejected the argument that restrictions only apply post-enrolment, stating that the Bar Council possesses the authority to "weed out" unsuitable elements at the "threshold itself"

Professional loyalty cannot be divided, as law is a "jealous mistress"

Relying on Chulani, the Court held that requiring a cancellation certificate is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution to ensure an advocate’s full-time dedication to the administration of justice

It concluded that the Bar Council of Kerala was within its rights to insist on the production of a cancellation certificate before admitting the petitioner to the State rolls

The court found the petitioner's undertaking insufficient as it did not resolve the statutory disability under the MP Act, 2021

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and all prayers for relief and compensation were rejected