Allahabad Hc Petition Electrohomeopathy Practitioner Allopathy Clinic Etah

Observing that a medical practitioner practicing a particular medicine system without having its degree is a quack, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a man’s petition to allow him to practise allopathy on the basis of a vocational certificate and run his clinic in Uttar Pradesh’s Etah district which was sealed by the state Health Department in February this year.

The division bench of Justices JJ Munir and Indrajeet Shukla dismissed the petition in which the man sought orders to practise allopathy on the basis of a vocational certificate (community health) he obtained from the National Institute of Open Schooling in 2005.

The petitioner’s clinic/hospital was sealed on the orders of the Etah chief medical officer (CMO) issued on February 16 after it was found that he was treating patients with allopathic medicines as the holder of a certificate/diploma in “electrohomeopathy” could not be allowed to practice allopathy.

It was also remarked that he was not entitled to practice allopathy without being registered with the CMO’s office and that no registration/operation of clinic could be permitted for someone holding an “electrohomeopathy” degree.

The division bench observed in its July 10 order, “A person can practice in allopathic system of medicine in state or in the country only if he possesses a recognized medical qualification. Permitting a person who does not possess the recognized medical qualification in allopathic medicine would be in direct conflict with the statute governing the field.”

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that his client had a long experience in the field of medicine and that the right to practice a profession, including medicine, is an integral part of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

The standing counsel representing the state government rejected the submission, stating that the certificate of “electrohomeopathy can by no stretch of imagination confer authority upon the petitioner to practice modern medicine, and the health of the 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. It is the State’s duty to protect public health from unqualified practitioners”, he added.

The bench observed that the right to practice a profession under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution is not an absolute right and remains subject to reasonable restrictions that the “State may impose in the interest of the general public”. “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,” it added.

The bench further stated, “In view of the factual matrix and the law, the petitioner is not entitled to practice modern medicine (allopathy) on the strength of his electrohomeopathy certificate. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its own wisdom and findings for those of competent expert authorities.”