Electro-homeopathy regulated by Medical Practitioners Acts: Kerala HC

Ernakulam: In a recent ruling, a Division bench of Kerala High Court comprising Dr Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A clarified that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is not unregulated and it is regulated by the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021.

"While a citizen is guaranteed a fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business, that right is by no means absolute in nature. It is subject to laws regulating professional qualification and conduct that are enacted with a view to balancing the rights of the professional concerned with the right to life and proper healthcare of persons who receive medical care and treatment," the bench noted.

"The upshot of the above discussion is that we allow this Writ Appeal, by dismissing the writ petition and declaring that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is indeed regulated by the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, as applicable," it further observed.

Case Background:

The issue arose when a plea was filed by a man, a holder of a diploma certificate from the Council of Electro Homeopathic System of Medicine, Kanpur, UP, before the Single Judge seeking a declaration that the State, including the police, or the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council cannot interfere with his practice of the alternative medicine of Electro-Homeopathy.

Previously, the plea was allowed by the single judge bench, which directed the police not to interfere with the practice unless the petitioner commits any cognizable offence by practising the medical branch.

The Single Judge bench had relied on an earlier ruling of the Division Bench holding that Electro-Homeopathy is unregulated.

Challenging the Single Judge's order, Travancore-Cochin Medical Council filed an appeal arguing that the assumption made by the Single Judge that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy was unregulated by law was incorrect.

The Council pointed out that relevant provisions of the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act as well as the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, govern the practice of Homeopathic medicine and without a valid registration, the petitioner would not be entitled to practice the same.

Meanwhile, the original petitioner argued that Electro-Homeopathy is merely a therapy like aromatherapy or naturopathy and would not come within the purview of the afore-mentioned laws.

Taking note of the arguments, the HC bench held that the judgement of the Division Bench relied upon by the Single Bench could not be seen as a precedent for the proposition that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is unregulated.

"Firstly, we find from a perusal of the said judgment that it proceeded to decide the lis before it in the absence of any material produced by the parties, that pointed to the existence of any law prohibiting the practice of Electro-Homeopathy. Read with the fact that the judgment did not refer to the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 that were in vogue then, we are constrained to view the said judgment as per incuriam for not noticing the statutory provisions that held the field," noted the bench.

"Secondly, we cannot find it in ourselves to accept as a general proposition that, in our country, which is governed by a written Constitution, a citizen has an absolute liberty to do anything unless expressly prohibited by law. As is well settled in our constitutional jurisprudence, the concept of absolute liberty is alien to our Constitution, and the protection of rights and liberties thereunder is only of such rights and liberties as remain when balanced against a citizen's corresponding duties and obligations towards fellow citizens," it further observed.

Accordingly, the bench concluded, "On the facts of the instant case, we find that the qualification obtained by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, even assuming it is a recognized one, is in a branch of Homeopathic medicine. If that be so, he would be regulated by the provisions of the Statutes mentioned above, should he pursue a practice as a practitioner of ElectroHomeopathic medicine. To hold otherwise would be disastrous for the people of this country, for, it is their lives that are at stake."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/19/kerala-hc-electro-homeopathy-354858.pdf

Also Read: No Ban on Electro-Homeopathy but Practitioners Can't Use 'Doctor' Prefix: Allahabad HC