HC quashes criminal proceedings against Ayurveda doctors over allopathy practice, pulls up medical council for procedural lapses
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court recently dismissed the criminal cases against three Ayurveda doctors who had been accused of practising allopathic medicine, ruling that the Telangana State Medical Council did not follow the proper legal procedure.
Even though the HC bench comprising Justice N Tukaramji quashed the criminal cases against the doctors, it did not give the doctors a complete pass. In fact, the bench clarified that Telangana State Medical Council still had the authority to take action.
"In the above noted findings, for deviating the prescribed procedure and absence of the material particulars in pointing cheating and impersonation, the proceedings started against the petitioners in the respective crimes are liable to be and are accordingly quashed. However the rights of the Respondent No.2 are expressly reserved to proceed against the petitioners as per the prescriptions under relevant provisions and may seek prosecution with requisite particulars/details," the HC bench held.
Observing that registered practitioners of Indian Medicine are not entitled to prescribe allopathic medicine, the High Court bench clarified that in order to take action, the Council must follow the proper procedure by referring the matter to the Commissioner of AYUSH and file a new police complaint, if necessary, with all the required evidence and details.
"In the light of the above legal frame work and settled position of law it is clear that the registered practitioners of Indian Medicine are not entitled to prescribe allopathic medicine and such practice is impermissible. Nonetheless, Rule 8 of the APMC Rules prescribes that in the cases involving unqualified persons or quacks i.e., individuals without any recognized qualification in medicine and not registered, the Medical Council is bound to file a criminal complaint with the police," held the HC bench.
"As such, the prescribed course of action under the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, and the Andhra Pradesh Medical council rules should be upon information, the Commissioner, AYUSH is the competent authority to take up further course of action. In effect, it shall be held that the Respondent No.2/TMC directly lodging police report for prosecution is impermissible under the prescribed Rules," it further observed.
The AYUSH doctors were booked in May 2025 based on a complaint by the Medical Council that conducted a surprise inspection at the clinics run by the accused in Cyberabad and Rangareddy.
Based on the inspection, the TMC, through its Registrar and Vigilance Officer, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners were administering IV fluids, injections, and allopathic drugs in violation of Rule 8(2)(9) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013 (APMCR); Section 20(ii) read with Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968(TMPR Act); Sections 34 of the National Medical Commission Act (NMCA); and Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Consequently, the related crimes were registered against the petitioners.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the registration of crimes without conducting any preliminary enquiry was an abuse of the process. He further submitted that even as per the contents of the complaint, the petitioners were duly qualified BAMS degree holders, having a valid registration with the Government of Telangana, Board of Indian Medicine, and the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act, 2020). Their clinics are duly registered, and they have undergone internships at Government Hospitals, thereby gaining practical clinical experience.
Further, the counsel emphasized before the HC bench that the petitioners never represented themselves as MBBS doctors, but they were engaged in a legally permissible medical practice which stands protected under Section 17(3)(b) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (IMCC Act, 1970).
The Counsel further relied on the Notification issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) in 1996 and the Ayush Memorandum dated 30.03.2017, both of which permitted Ayurvedic practitioners to practice modern scientific medicine to a limited extent. He argued that no complaint has been filed by an authorized officer under Section 50 of the NCISM Act, 2020, and that the TMC has no suo motu power under Rule 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013 (APMC Rules). Thus, there exists a clear procedural irregularity, argued the counsel.
On the other hand, the counsel for TMC refuted these submissions and argued that the petitioners, though not qualified in allopathic medicine, were nonetheless practicing and prescribing allopathic drugs in their clinics, which constitutes an illegal practice amounting to quackery.
The TMC's counsel further argued that the legal position is well settled that persons holding qualifications in Indian systems of medicine are not entitled to practice or prescribe allopathic medicine. The TMC, being the competent authority, is empowered to initiate prosecution.
Referring to the petitioner's counsel that TMC ought to have reported the matter to the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, which alone could act under the NCISM Act, the counsel for the Council termed it implausible, since the restriction under Section 50 of the Act applies only to complaints under the NCISM Act itself, and does not curtail the TMC's authority to lodge complaints under other applicable laws. It was further argued that the privilege available to registered practitioners under the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 amended in 2013(TMPR Act) extends only to the field of medicine in which they are qualified, and cannot be stretched to permit them to practice allopathy.
While considering the matter, the HC bench examined the powers and functions of the committees under medical council set out under Rule 8 of the APMC Rules and took note of the legal precedence set by the Supreme Court.
"In the light of the above legal frame work and settled position of law it is clear that the registered practitioners of Indian Medicine are not entitled to prescribe allopathic medicine and such practice is impermissible," held the HC bench.
"Whereas, in the present matter on hand, the allegation of the Respondent No.2/TMC is that the petitioners who are registered practitioners under the system of Indian Medicine are prescribing modern system of medicine. This imputation is taken as it is, the same would not qualify the category of quackery, but rather under the fourth situation identified above, namely, non-allopathic practitioners practicing modern medicine," it further clarified.
The court also noted that Section 31 of the NMC Act prescribes National Register and State Register of modern Scientific System of Medicine and Section 32(5) the National Commission for Indian System of Medicines Act, 2020(NCISM Act), prescribes that every State Medical Council shall maintain and regularly update the State Register in the specified electronic format and supply a physical copy of the same to the Board of Ethics and Registration for Indian System of Medicine within three months of the commencement of this Act.
At this outset, the bench held, "This position is prima facie making clear that the Medical Council has to maintain distinct registers at National and State level for the practitioners of modern scientific medicine and Indian System of Medicine."
"Thus the privileges pointed to by the petitioners shall also require examination and whether the privileges and the statute would come to the aid of petitioners’ case is an aspect to be considered. The reference of the petitioners that the notifications of Central Government of Indian Medicine, office memorandum which prescribe that the allopathic medicine to the extent of training received by them in modern medicine would insulate the petitioners from prescribing/practicing allopathic system of medicine would be another aspect which requires examination," it observed.
However, the bench referred to Section 54 of the NMC Act, which prescribes that no Court may take cognizance of offences punishable under the Act except upon a written complaint made by an authorized officer of the National Medical Commission, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board, or the relevant State Medical Council.
"As noted earlier the prosecution proceedings were initiated upon the police report of the Respondent No.2/TMC. For this foundational defect, this accusation cannot be maintained," it held.
It noted that the allegation against the petitioners is under sections 318 (4) and 319 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2013 (BNS). In this regard, the Court held that to constitute an offence of Cheating, a person commit an act of deception, and fraudulent or dishonest inducement of another person, to deliver property, or to consent to the retention of property, or to do or omit an act that he would not have done or omitted but for the deception, and such act or omission causes, or is likely to cause, damage or harm to body, mind, reputation, or property.
"Dishonest concealment of facts also amounts to deception. Further, Cheating by personation is an act to pretends to be another person, or knowingly substitutes one person for another, or misrepresents his own or another’s identity. The primary right to lodge a police report lies with the victim/complainant who has been deceived (or whose property/security has been affected). However, since cheating and cheating by personation are cognizable offences, any person with knowledge of the offence may set the criminal law in motion by filing an FIR, upon which the police are bound to investigate. However the police report must indicate the particulars and the prima facie case. In this view, initiation of proceedings by the Respondent No.2/TMC is ex facie acceptable, in the present police report, the particulars of the persons who are deceived and the manner of impersonation are conspicuously absent. In the circumstances, the allegation against the petitioners per se that they have prescribed modern scientific medicine by holding registration under Indian system of medicine alone, without some particular, would fall short in making out a prima facie case of cheating and impersonation," it observed.
"It is settled position that though under Section 528 of BNSS this Court is empowered to quash the first information report to prevent the abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice, this jurisdiction shall be exercised with care and caution. It has been held in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others -1992 AIR 604 and M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. v. The State of Maharashtra - AIR 2021 SC 1918, it has been held that for quashment of first information report the Court must satisfy that the F.I.R. or criminal proceedings is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive or abuse of process of Court and quahsment of the F.I.R. or criminal proceedings is necessary to secure ends of justice. Further the aspects whether the F.I.R. was filed with mala fide intention or to harass or intimidate the accused; filed for political or personal vendetta; F.I.R. did not disclose any offence and no prima facie case is against the accused, this can be exercised. It is also well settled that the Court shall not conduct a detailed enquiry but contention of injustice or abuse of process of legal process," noted the Court.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/telangana-hc-ayush-doctors-300816.pdf
Also Read: FIR not enough: Telangana HC tells NMC to reconsider medical college permission denial
