Practising allopathy without recognised medical qualification makes one a Quack- HC on electrohomeopathy practitioner's plea

Allahabad: In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court clarified that a person does not become entitled to practice modern medicine (allopathy) based on having a certificate in 'electrohomeopathy'.

"A person, who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a quack and a mere pretender of medical knowledge or skill or to put it differently, can be maximum termed a charlatan," observed the HC bench of Justices JJ Munir and Indrajeet Shukla.

Further, the bench clarified that "A person can practice in allopathic system of medicine in State or in the country only if he possess a recognized medical qualification. Permitting a person, who does not possess the recognized medical qualification in the allopathic medicine would be in direct conflict with the Statute governing the field."

These observations were made by the High Court while dismissing the petition filed by a clinic owner after his hospital was sealed by the Chief Medical Officer of Etah. Filing the plea before the HC bench, the petitioner sought directions on the State authorities to permit him to operate his clinic and practice modern medicine.

According to the case details, the petitioner obtained a Vocational Certificate (Community Health) in 2005 from the National Institute of Open Schooling and based on the said certificate, he became eligible to practice modern scientific medicine.

He was issued a notice on 26.06.2019 by the Chief Medical Officer, Etah, to submit his degrees and educational record entitling him to practice medicine. Following this, the petitioner submitted the educational documents. However, allegedly, he was issued a show cause notice for the closure of his clinic.

When the petitioner submitted a representation before the CMO and argued that he was eligible to practice allopathy based on the Vocational Certificate in Community Health, his representation was rejected. The petitioner's representation was rejected by an order dated 16.02.2026 observing that the petitioner was practising and treating patients with allopathic medicines, but was not entitled to practice allopathy without being registered in the office of the Chief Medical Officer. It was also remarked that no registration/operation of the clinic can be permitted for a practitioner holding a degree in ‘Electrohomeopathy’. Further, it was mentioned that the holder of a certificate/diploma in Electrohomeopathy cannot be allowed to practice allopathic medicine, being prohibited by Government Orders.

Regarding the clinic, the order mentioned that it did not meet the standards set up by Manak Dainik Sthapan (Registrikaran aur Viniyaman), Adhiniyam, 2010; it did not have a biomedical waste management system, a fire NOC, infection prevention and control system, etc.

Challenging the order before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that the right to practice a profession, including medicine, is an integral part of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and the order in question interferes with the same.

On the other hand, the State's counsel submitted that the certificate of electrohomeopathy can by no stretch of imagination confer authority on the petitioner to practice modern medicine and therefore the order in question was valid.

Observations by High Court:

Taking note of the submissions, the HC bench observed, "The health of public at large is the primary responsibility of the State Government. As such, any quack cannot be permitted to play with the health of the general public. The practice of medicine is regulated by the Statutes and Government Orders, which occupy the field and prescribe standards. It is the State’s duty to protect public health from unqualified practitioners."

Clarifying that required qualification is essential for practicing allopathy, the bench further observed, "It is well settled that a practitioner registered under one system of medicine cannot transgress and practice another system, particularly ‘allopathy’ without requisite qualification and registration, and that doing so amounts to negligence per se exposing both the practitioner and the public to grave risk (Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel (1996) 40 SCC 332). Likewise, the Supreme Court has held that a practitioner of Indian system of medicine is not entitled to prescribe allopathic drugs unless expressly permitted by the governing statute or rules framed (Dr. Mukhtar Chand Vs. State of Punjab (1998) 7 Scc 579)."

According to the bench, the petitioner's certificate in electrohomeopathy by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a valid degree/diploma entitling him to practice modern medicine (allopathy).

At this outset, the bench observed, "Having considered the rival submissions advanced by parties and perused the record, it comes out that the petitioner though in possession of a certificate in electrohomeopathy is not thereby entitled to practice modern medicine, particularly the allopathic system. The seal on the petitioner’s clinic has been declined to be removed for the reason that it does not meet the standards to operate a hospital/clinic, and even unqualified doctors were found to be practicing modern medicine on the premises of the hospital in question."

The bench held that a person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a quack. Relying on the Supreme Court's order in the case of Dr. Mukhtar Chand (supra), the top court bench further observed that "The petitioner’s clinic is admittedly not registered with the office of Chief Medical Officer, which is a sine qua non for practicing modern medicine and treating patients."

It was observed by the bench that the right to practice a profession under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right and remains subject to reasonable restrictions that the State may impose in the interest of the general public under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

"Regulatory measures ensure that only qualified and registered persons practice medicine and the clinical establishment meet prescribed standards. Such restrictions are legitimate and proportionate restriction in the interest of public health and cannot be said to offend Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India," observe dthe bench.

Accordingly, the bench denied granting relief to the petitioner and ordered, "In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the law, the inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner is not entitled to practice modern medicine (allopathy) on the strength of his electrohomeopathy certificate. More so, his clinic/hospital also failed to meet the standards prescribed by various Government Orders as well as the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) Act, 2020. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its own wisdom and findings for those of competent expert authorities. The petitioner is not entitled to practice modern medicine. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/14/electrohomeopathy-allahabad-hc-359595.pdf

Also Read:Electro-homeopathy regulated by Medical Practitioners Acts: Kerala HC