Medical registration must be cancelled before practising law: Kerala HC upholds single Judge ruling
Kerala High Court
Ernakulam: A Division bench of the Kerala High Court recently upheld a Single Judge's ruling that held that a registered medical practitioner cannot seek permission to enrol as an Advocate unless the medical registration is cancelled.
Dismissing the appeal by the concerned homeopathy doctor, the Division bench of the High Court comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed, "We are of the view that the appellant cannot, without cancelling her registration as a Homeopathic Medical practitioner, truthfully subscribe to a declaration in Form No.6 under the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, that she is not engaged in the medical profession as a Homeopathic medical practitioner. Viewed from another angle, the appellant's was not a case where the bar against simultaneous practice would be attracted only after her enrolment as an Advocate. It was one where, in the light of her continued status as a Homeopathic medical practitioner, she could not prefer a valid application for enrolment as an Advocate."
Case Background:
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that, challenging the Bar Council of Kerala's refusal to grant her enrolment to practice law without a certificate showing the cancellation of the registration as a medical practitioner, the homeopath had approached the Single bench of the High Court.
She had 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 had argued 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.
Earlier, a Single Judge bench comprising Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had 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 Single bench had 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 had 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.
Observing that a professional cannot share his/her allegiance with another profession, the HC bench had 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."
Arguments before Division Bench:
Challenging the Single Bench's ruling, the doctor filed an appeal before the Division bench of the High Court. It was argued that the Single Judge's finding that a person who has a right to embark upon a particular profession has to be taken as engaged in that profession, and further, that the right to practice a profession that entitles a person to earn a remuneration of profit will render that person as engaged in that profession, is without any legislative backing or sanction.
It was further contended that the bar against simultaneous engagement in two professions would operate only after the appellant enrolled as an Advocate and not before when her application for enrolment comes up for consideration.
Apart from this, it was also argued on behalf of the doctor that merely because her name was included in the list of registered Homeopathic medical practitioners, it did not follow that she was actually engaged in such practice, more so when she had cancelled the license issued to her by the local authority for running her clinic and she had undertaken before the Bar Council of Kerala that she would not practice as a Homeopath while she was practicing as an Advocate.
On the other hand, the counsel for Bar council of Kerala relied on the statutory provisions under the Advocates Act and the 2021 Act to point out that there were express provisions under both the regulatory Statutes that are designed to prohibit a simultaneous engagement by a person in both the medical and legal professions and therefore the Enrolment Committe's stand could not be faulted.
Observations by Division Bench:
While considering the matter, the Division Bench of the HC took note of the Section 2 (j) & (o) of The Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, issues relating to Registration, Powers and Responsibilities, Advocates Act, Bar Council of India Rules, and Bar Council of Kerala Rules.
Referring to these provisions, the Division bench observed, "It will be clear from a perusal of the statutory provisions noticed above, that the statutory scheme under both the regulatory Statutes referred above frowns upon persons carrying on the two professions – medical and legal, simultaneously. The apparent object of the said provisions is to ensure maintenance of the highest professional standards in the profession concerned undiluted through a sharing of commitment and dedication with another equally challenging profession. It is by keeping in mind the said statutory objective that we must test the legality of the action of the Bar Council of Kerala that insisted upon a cancellation of the appellant's registration certificate under the 2021 Act, as a precondition for considering her application for enrolment under the Advocates Act."
The bench agreed with the appellant's counsel's argument that merely because one gets a right to practice a profession, it does not follow that he/she is actually 'engaged' in that profession.
However, it also observed, "The position would be different, however, if a person holding a professional qualification, goes further and expresses his/her intention to 'engage' in that profession by taking the steps mandated under the regulatory Statutes for the same."
"Under both the regulatory Statutes in the instant case, the Advocates Act as well as the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, that intention is manifested as and when the person concerned takes steps to get his/her name registered as a practitioner and entered in the respective registers containing the list of practitioners. On the facts of the instant case, we find from a reading of the definition of “registered practitioner” and “practitioner” under the 2021 Act, that the registration obtained by the appellant voluntarily, and on her application, entitled her to privileges accorded under the 2021 Act to persons “practicing” Homeopathic medicine. The use of the present continuous tense while defining a “practitioner” under the Act lends support to the view that a person registered as a medical practitioner under the 2021 Act, and whose name appears in “the List of persons in practice” virtually holds out to the public at large that she is engaged in the practice of Homeopathic medicine. Insofar as the appellant's name continued to be shown in the list of persons in medical practice, her application before the enrolment committee of the Kerala Bar Council, seeking enrolment as an Advocate and for including her name in the list of practicing Advocates was not one that could have been considered by the respondent Bar Council without offending the statutory object and express provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder," it further noted.
The bench further observed that, as per the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, particularly Rule 2(h) under Chapter V and Rule 12, an applicant for enrolment as an Advocate must furnish a declaration in Form No.6 before the Enrolment Committee.
"In the instant case, the appellant had furnished such a declaration stating therein that she is not currently practicing Homeopathic medicine. In the light of the fact that the appellant continues to be a registered medical practitioner with her name entered in “the List of persons in practice” as mandated under Section 26 of the 2021 Act, the said declaration made by the appellant, along with her application for enrolment, cannot be seen as factually correct. Axiomatically, her application containing such a declaration cannot be seen as a valid one meriting consideration by the respondent Bar Council in terms of Section 26 of the Advocates Act," noted the bench.
Accordingly, the Division Bench concluded that the appellant cannot, without cancelling her registration as a Homeopathic Medical practitioner, truthfully subscribe to a declaration in Form No.6 under the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, that she is not engaged in the medical profession as a Homeopathic medical practitioner.
Before parting, the Court also expressed its inability to fathom the reason for the appellant's reluctance to cancel her certificate of registration as a Homeopathic medical practitioner, especially in the light of her eagerness and ardent interest to practice as an Advocate.
"Section 29(2) of the 2021 Act clearly provides for a reregistration as a registered medical practitioner if at some time in the future, she wishes to give up legal practice and return to Homeopathic medical practice. We see no basis for the apprehension expressed on behalf of the appellant that she may not be permitted to re-register under the 2021 Act once she cancels her present registration. On the contrary, a reading of Sections 29 and 31 of the 2021 Act make it abundantly clear that the appellant has to cancel her registration under that Act, if she intends to take up practice in another profession," it noted.
With this observation, the Division bench upheld the Single Judge's ruling and observed, "The upshot of the above discussion is that we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the said judgment, as supplemented by the reasons in this judgment, we dismiss this writ appeal but without any order as to costs."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/18/kerala-hc-medical-registration-law-354658.pdf
