The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the right to practice medicine, particularly allopathic medicine, is strictly regulated and requires valid registration under the applicable statutory framework. In dismissing a writ petition challenging the sealing of a clinic, the Court held that an electrohomeopathy certificate does not confer authority to practice modern medicine, emphasizing public health protections over individual claims of professional freedom.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Sharma, operated a clinic in Etah, Uttar Pradesh, claiming entitlement to practice modern medicine based on a Vocational Certificate Code No. 802 (Community Health) obtained from the National Institute of Open Schooling in 2005. The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Medical Officer, Etah, sealed his clinic on grounds of non-compliance with regulatory standards and lack of valid qualifications to practice allopathic medicine.
Key Facts
The petitioner obtained a vocational certificate in Community Health in 2005 but was not registered under the allopathic medical system
On 26.06.2019, the Chief Medical Officer, Etah, issued a notice demanding submission of qualifications entitling him to practice medicine
The petitioner responded on 03.07.2019 and again on 27.12.2024, annexing academic testimonials and requesting withdrawal of the notice
A show cause notice dated 01.05.2025 directed closure of the clinic, prompting the petitioner to file Writ-C No. 41953 of 2024
The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 08.01.2026, directing the petitioner to file a detailed objection within two weeks and the Chief Medical Officer to decide the matter within one month
The petitioner submitted an exhaustive representation, but the Chief Medical Officer rejected it on 16.02.2026, observing:
The petitioner was not registered to practice allopathic medicine under Government Order No. 2374/5-2001 dated 16.09.2021
A certificate in Electrohomeopathy does not authorize practice of allopathic medicine, as prohibited by:
Government Order No. Anubhag-1, Sankhya-1297/71-Ayush-2016 dated 03.08.2016
Government Order No. Uttar Pradesh Chikitsa Anubhag-6, Sankhya-726/Panch-6-2023 dated 13.04.2023
The clinic failed to meet standards under:
Manak Dainik Sthapan (Registrikaran aur Viniyaman), Adhiniyam, 2010
Government Order No. 2374/panch-5-2021 dated 16.09.2021
Government Order No. Uttar Pradesh Shashan Ayush Anubhag-1, Sankhya-1297/71-Ayush-1-2016-davlu-283/2014 dated 03.08.2016
The clinic lacked:
Biomedical waste management system
Fire NOC
Infection prevention and control system
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and his representation was rejected
Procedural History
26.06.2019: Notice issued by Chief Medical Officer, Etah
03.07.2019: Petitioner’s first response
27.12.2024: Petitioner’s detailed submission
01.05.2025: Show cause notice for clinic closure
Writ-C No. 41953 of 2024: Filed before Allahabad High Court
08.01.2026: High Court disposes of writ petition, directing fresh representation and decision within one month
16.02.2026: Chief Medical Officer rejects representation, seals clinic
Writ-C No. 21019 of 2026: Present writ petition filed challenging the sealing order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Quashing of the order dated 16.02.2026 sealing his clinic
A writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to permit operation of his clinic and practice of modern medicine
Recognition of his vocational certificate as valid qualification to practice allopathic medicine
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Vocational Certificate in Community Health (Electrohomeopathy) entitles the holder to practice allopathic medicine under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and whether the State’s regulatory framework imposing reasonable restrictions on such practice is constitutionally valid.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The impugned order was passed without affording adequate opportunity of hearing
The sealing of the clinic was motivated by malice, as respondent no. 6 acted out of vengeance
The petitioner has long-standing experience in medicine and should not be deprived of his livelihood
The right to practice a profession, including medicine, is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and the impugned order violates this right
For the Respondent/State
The petitioner’s Electrohomeopathy certificate does not confer authority to practice modern medicine (allopathy)
The health of the public is the State’s primary responsibility, and quackery cannot be permitted
The practice of medicine is regulated by statutes and Government Orders, which prescribe standards for qualification and registration
A practitioner registered under one system of medicine cannot practice another system without requisite qualification and registration, as held in Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel and Dr. Mukhtar Chand v. State of Punjab
The petitioner’s clinic failed to meet prescribed standards under various Government Orders and the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) Act, 2020
The right under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health, as held in Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. and State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the regulatory framework governing medical practice in Uttar Pradesh and the constitutional validity of restrictions on the right to practice a profession. Key observations included:
"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."
The Court relied on Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, as interpreted in Dr. Mukhtar Chand v. State of Punjab, to hold:
"47. A harmonious reading of Section 15 of 1956 Act and Section 17 of 1970 Act leads to the conclusion that there is no scope for a person enrolled on the State Register of Indian medicine or Central Register of Indian Medicine to practise modern scientific medicine in any of its branches unless that person is also enrolled on a State Medical Register within the meaning of 1956 Act.48. The right to practise modern scientific medicine or Indian system of medicine cannot be based on the provisions of the Drugs Rules and declaration made thereunder by State Governments. Indeed, prescribing a drug is a concomitant of the right to practise a system of medicine. Therefore, in a broader sense the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine."
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s clinic was not registered with the Chief Medical Officer, which is a sine qua non for practicing modern medicine. It further noted that the clinic failed to meet statutory standards, including the absence of a biomedical waste management system, fire NOC, and infection prevention and control system.
On the constitutional question, the Court held that the right under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State in the interest of public health. It cited Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. and State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat to underscore that regulatory measures ensuring only qualified and registered practitioners practice medicine are legitimate and proportionate.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held:
The petitioner’s Electrohomeopathy certificate does not entitle him to practice allopathic medicine
The sealing of the clinic was justified as it failed to meet statutory standards under various Government Orders and the NCISM Act, 2020
The right to practice medicine under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health
The Court cannot substitute its wisdom for that of competent expert authorities in matters of medical regulation
No costs were awarded
What This Means For Similar Cases
Only Valid Registration Under Allopathic System Permits Practice
Practitioners must ensure they are registered under the specific system of medicine they intend to practice. A qualification in Electrohomeopathy, Ayurveda, or any other alternative system does not authorize practice of allopathic medicine
Government Orders and statutory frameworks in Uttar Pradesh and other States explicitly prohibit cross-system practice without valid registration. Non-compliance may lead to sealing of clinics, criminal proceedings, and denial of professional rights
Public Health Protections Override Individual Claims
Courts will defer to regulatory authorities in matters of public health, particularly when unqualified practitioners pose risks to patients
Article 19(1)(g) is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). Regulatory measures ensuring qualified practitioners and standardized clinics are constitutionally valid
Quackery is treated as negligence per se, exposing practitioners to legal and criminal liability
Compliance with Clinic Standards Is Non-Negotiable
Clinics must comply with statutory standards under:
Manak Dainik Sthapan (Registrikaran aur Viniyaman), Adhiniyam, 2010
NCISM Act, 2020
Relevant Government Orders (e.g., fire safety, biomedical waste management, infection control)
Failure to meet these standards may result in sealing, criminal action, and denial of registration
Practitioners should regularly audit their clinics to ensure compliance with evolving regulatory requirements
