Can Unregistered Practitioners of Indigenous Medicine Practice? Supreme Court Clarifies
Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs State of Kerala and Others
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A court cannot permit unregistered practitioners to practice medicine merely because they claim traditional knowledge.
• Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act prohibits unregistered individuals from practicing medicine.
• Recognition of traditional practitioners is limited to those who meet specific qualifications under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act.
• The right to practice medicine is subject to laws governing professional qualifications and registration.
• Legislation aims to protect public health by regulating who can practice medicine.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a significant issue regarding the practice of indigenous medicine by unregistered practitioners. In the case of Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs State of Kerala and Others, the Court clarified the legal standing of practitioners who do not possess recognized qualifications or registration under relevant medical statutes. This ruling has far-reaching implications for the practice of traditional medicine in India, particularly in Kerala, where indigenous systems like Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani are prevalent.
Case Background
The Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum, representing practitioners of traditional medicine, challenged the legality of their exclusion from practicing medicine under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. The Act mandates that only registered practitioners with recognized qualifications can practice various forms of medicine, including Ayurveda and Unani. The Forum argued that many practitioners have inherited their knowledge and skills through generations and should be allowed to continue their practice without formal registration.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitions filed by the Forum, asserting that the Act's provisions were clear in requiring registration for all practitioners. The Court emphasized that the safety and health of the public necessitated strict adherence to these regulations, which were designed to ensure that only qualified individuals could provide medical treatment.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeals, focused on the core issue of whether individuals without the prescribed qualifications and registration could be allowed to practice as 'Paramparya Vaidyas.' The Court noted that the legislative framework surrounding medical practice in India, particularly concerning indigenous systems, is aimed at safeguarding public health.
The Court highlighted that the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, along with the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, establishes a clear distinction between recognized practitioners and those who lack formal qualifications. It reiterated that the right to practice medicine is not absolute and is subject to regulatory measures that ensure practitioners possess the necessary skills and knowledge.
Statutory Interpretation
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act and the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. Section 38 of the former explicitly prohibits unregistered individuals from practicing any form of medicine, including indigenous systems. The Court emphasized that this prohibition is crucial for maintaining standards in medical practice and protecting patients from unqualified practitioners.
The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, further reinforces this framework by stipulating that only those with recognized qualifications can be enrolled on the State Register of Indian Medicine. The Court noted that while there are provisions for traditional practitioners, these are limited to those who have been practicing for a specified period and meet certain criteria.
Constitutional or Policy Context
The ruling also touches upon the constitutional right to practice any profession, which is subject to regulations aimed at ensuring public safety. The Court recognized that while individuals have the right to pursue their profession, this right is not unfettered and must align with laws that govern professional qualifications.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant as it clarifies the legal landscape for practitioners of indigenous medicine in India. It underscores the importance of regulatory frameworks in ensuring that medical practitioners are adequately qualified to provide safe and effective treatment. The ruling serves as a reminder that traditional knowledge, while valuable, must be complemented by formal education and registration to protect public health.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court reiterated that unregistered practitioners cannot be permitted to practice medicine, emphasizing the need for adherence to established medical standards and regulations.
Case Details
- Case Title: Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs State of Kerala and Others
- Citation: 2018 INSC 336
- Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Bench: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
- Date of Judgment: 2018-04-13
%20Defined.png){kind=spacer}