Doctors cannot follow any other profession without cancelling medical registration: Kerala HC junks homeopath's plea to practice law

Ernakulam: Denying permission to a Homeopathy doctor to enrol as an advocate, the Kerala High Court recently held that a registered medical practitioner cannot follow any other profession without cancelling their registration.

The bench held that homeopaths cannot enrol as advocates unless they first cancel their registration as medical practitioners.

Referring to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act 2021, the HC bench comprising Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "A perusal of the provisions of the MP Act 2021 especially those referred to above, it is quite evident that, if a person’s name is included in the list of registered medical practitioners, he cannot follow any other profession without permission from the Council or without cancelling his registration."

The Court observed that once the State Bar Council becomes aware that an applicant remains entitled to practice any other profession and continues in the register of such other profession, it is within the Bar Council's authority to deny enrolment as an Advocate.

"In view of the above discussion, it has to be concluded that a registered medical practitioner of Homoeopathy can be denied permission to enrol as an Advocate unless the registration as a Homoeopath is cancelled," it observed in respect of the Homeopath's plea challenging the Bar Council of Kerala's refusal to enrol her as an advocate, while her name continued in the medical register.

Case Details:

The concerned Homoeopathic practitioner was asked by the Bar Council of Kerala to produce a cancellation certificate showing that her registration as a Homoeopathic medical practitioner.

Challenging the Bar Council's refusal, the petitioner approached the High Court and argued that she had already cancelled the municipal licence for running her clinic. She also submitted that she had completed her LLB course, and cleared the All India Bar Examination and had also undertaken not to practice medicine after enrolment as an Advocate.

According to the case details, the petitioner was given an opportunity for a personal hearing before the Bar Council and she submitted an undertaking as required under Rule 2(h) Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, stating that, upon her enrolment as an Advocate, she would not practice medicine or engage in the medical profession simultaneously.

Allegedly, despite this, the petitioner's name remained absent in the enrolment list for January 2026. The petitioner alleged that she was arbitrarily denied permission to enrol as an Advocate.

On the other hand, the Bar Council submitted that even though the petitioner possesses a degree in law, from the documents submitted by her, it was revealed that she had obtained a Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine degree in 2008. However, she had not produced any document evidencing the cancellation of her licence as a Homoeo Doctor and therefore, she was directed to upload the same.

The Council further submitted that it was also revealed that the petitioner was practising as a Homoeopathic consultant for a period of five years from 2017 to 2022 in her own building and that she cancelled the licence issued by the local authority for running the clinic. The Council also pleaded that in the letter dated 03.01.2026, the petitioner had specifically stated that cancellation of her registration as a Homoeopath would result in her inability to get back into the medical profession if she decided to do so later and therefore she had expressed her difficulties against the cancellation of her medical registration.

Though the petitioner had submitted an undertaking as per the Rules, according to the authorities, the rules indicate that a person already engaged in any other profession is not qualified to be admitted as an Advocate. It was also pleaded that as the petitioner’s name is included in the list of medical practitioners published in the Gazette as per Section 30 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, she cannot practice another profession simultaneously, under Section 31(2) of the Act as well.

The Council averred that as long as the petitioner's name is in the register as a medical practitioner, it is evident that she does not want to give up the medical profession, notwithstanding her undertaking. Justifying the rejection of the request for enrolment, it was pointed out that insistence on the cancellation certificate from the other profession is applied uniformly in the case of all professionals and that it was only with the bona fide intention that a person does not pursue two professions simultaneously that the cancellation certificate is insisted.

Court's Observation:

While interpreting the expression "engaged in any profession", mentioned in Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, the HC bench observed, "A person who has a right to involve himself or embark upon a particular profession, he has to be regarded as engaged in that profession. The right to practice a profession which entitles that person to earn a remuneration or profit, will regard him as engaged in that profession."

The court also examined Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, along with Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, under which, every applicant willing to enrol as an advocate is required to declare that he or she is not engaged in any trade, business or profession except part-time teaching in law.

It was observed by the HC bench that 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.

The bench also referred to MP Act 2021, which replaced the Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, and noted that

"Section 31(2) of MP Act 2021 creates a disability for a registered medical practitioner that he/she shall not follow any other profession without the sanction of the Council concerned as long as his name continues in the register concerned. Section 36 of the MP Act 2021 mandates that no person other than those registered under that Act shall practice or hold himself out directly or by implication as practising any of the fields of medicine mentioned therein, which include Homoeopathy."

Accordingly, relying on the MP Act, 2021, the bench held that if a person’s name is included in the list of registered medical practitioners, he cannot follow any other profession without permission from the Council or without cancelling his registration.

"Concededly, petitioner’s name continues to remain in the list of registered medical practitioners of the State. Such continuance, projects to the world that, petitioner is a medical practitioner. Mere cancellation of the licence to run the Homoeopathy clinic does not satisfy the requirement of the aforementioned provisions of law. Hence, 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. The spirit of the provisions in rule 2(h) of BCK Rules apart from that of section 30(3), 31(2) and 36 of MP Act 2021 cannot be ignored as it is manifest that, a person should not only be actually practising but should not be entitled to practice the profession of medicine as of right, unless he has obtained consent from the Council," the Court observed at this outset.

"The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the above rules framed by the Bar Council of Kerala would apply only after the petitioner enrols as an Advocate, though impressive on first blush, on a deeper scrutiny it is evident that once the State Bar Council becomes aware about the petitioner’s entitlement to practice another profession, they are at liberty, under law, to deny petitioner the right to enrol as an Advocate," it further held.

Observing that a professional cannot share his/her allegiance with another profession, the HC bench further noted in the order,

"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. Bar Councils are institutions set up under the Act not only to ensure professional excellence, but also to identify and weed out elements that are unsuitable to the profession. The filtration of persons or identifying persons eligible to practice the profession of law is not restricted to a stage only after they commence the practice of law. Such a power must be capable of being exercised even at the threshold itself."

"Thus, if the Bar Council concerned has, from the materials made available, identified that an applicant for enrolment has a right to practice another profession and is listed in the register for another profession, it is certainly within its realm of authority to deny that candidate the permission to enrol as an Advocate," it held.

While the court acknowledged that a citizen has a fundamental right to practice any profession, it also noted that "The said right however, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Under Article 19(6) of the Constitution after acquiring the degree in law, and clearing the Bar examination, petitioner can certainly expect herself to be permitted to enrol as an Advocate. Nevertheless, by virtue of the BCK Rules, an applicant’s entry into the legal profession can be restricted if he/she is engaged in another profession. Such a restriction has been already declared by the Supreme Court to be reasonable, coming within the purview of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India."

Referring to the Supreme Court order in the case of Dr Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (1996), the Court reiterated that the legal profession requires full-time attention. The bench further reiterared the Supreme Court's observation that a person cannot simultaneously insist on being both a practicing doctor and practicing advocate as such divided loyalty would leave the professional "torn between two conflicting loyalties."

With these observations, the HC bench concluded that a registered medical practitioner of Homoeopathy can be denied permission to enrol as an Advocate unless the registration as a Homoeopath is cancelled.

"Ext.P17 to the extent it directs the petitioner to produce the cancellation certificate from the Homoeopathic Council does not call for any interference. The reliefs prayed for, including the claim for damages, are without any merit and hence the writ petition is dismissed," read the order.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/20/kerala-hc-348742.pdf

Also Read: Kerala HC seeks state's response on bail plea of former HoD in BDS student death case