Registered Homeopath Cannot Seek Bar Enrolment Without Cancelling Medical Registration, Kerala High Court Rules

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that a practising Homeopath's continued registration under the 2021 Act rendered her Form No.6 declaration factually incorrect, making her enrolment application invalid.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., dismissed a writ appeal filed by T.M. Manju, a registered Homeopathic medical practitioner who sought enrolment as an Advocate while her name remained on the “List of persons in practice” under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. The court held that so long as her name continued in that list, she could not truthfully subscribe to the declaration in Form No.6 under the Bar Council of Kerala Rules stating that she was not engaged in any profession. The judgment, delivered on 17 June 2026 in W.A. No.1170 of 2026, affirms and supplements the reasoning of the Single Judge who had dismissed her writ petition on 18 May 2026.

From Homeopathy to Law: The Appellant’s Route to the Bar

T.M. Manju, aged 43, obtained a Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery degree in 2008 from Kerala University and registered as a medical practitioner under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. Her registration carried over automatically to the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, which replaced the earlier enactment. Her name remained in the “List of persons in practice” maintained under Section 26 of the 2021 Act.

Deciding to shift to law, she cancelled the local authority licence for her Homeopathic clinic and completed a three-year LL.B course from 2022 to 2025. After clearing the All India Bar Examination, she applied to the Bar Council of Kerala on 17 November 2025 for enrolment as an Advocate.

The Enrolment Committee did not consider her application. Its proceedings (Ext.P17) recorded that she had not submitted a cancellation certificate of her Homeopathic registration issued by the Council of Homeopathic Medicine, Kerala State Medical Councils, and deferred the matter until she produced that certificate.

The Challenge Before the Single Judge and the Division Bench

Manju challenged Ext.P17 in W.P.(C) No.6893 of 2026, arguing that neither the Advocates Act, the Bar Council of India Rules, nor the Bar Council of Kerala Rules contained any statutory provision requiring production of a cancellation certificate as a pre-condition for enrolment. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 18 May 2026, relying on Bar Council of India v. Mary Tresa and Others [2006 (2) KLT 210] and Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa [(1996) 3 SCC 342]. The Single Judge found that her continued presence in the “List of persons in practice” deemed her to be engaged in the medical profession, and that the 2021 Act itself created a disability against following any other profession without the sanction of the Medical Council concerned.

She appealed to the Division Bench. Senior counsel Sri O.V. Radhakrishnan, instructed by Sri H. Vishnudas, appeared for her. Sri P. Ramakrishnan appeared for the Bar Council of Kerala.

The Statutory Framework the Bench Examined

The Division Bench set out the relevant provisions of both regulatory statutes before analysing the rival submissions.

Under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, Section 2(j) defines “practitioner” as any person practising in Modern Medicine, Indian Systems of Medicine, or Homeopathic Medicine with a valid registration. Section 2(o) defines “registered practitioner” as one whose name is entered in the register maintained under the Act. Section 31(2) provides that no registered practitioner shall follow any other profession without the sanction of the Council concerned so long as his name continues in the register. Section 36 prohibits any person not registered under the Act from practising or holding himself out as practising Homeopathy or other listed branches of medicine.

Under the Advocates Act, Section 24(1)(e) permits a State Bar Council to specify additional conditions for enrolment. Section 26(2) requires the Enrolment Committee, where it proposes to refuse an application, to refer it to the Bar Council of India for its opinion before doing so.

Under the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, Chapter V, Rule 2(h) requires every applicant for enrolment to file a declaration in Form No.6 stating that the applicant is not in full or part-time employment or service and is not engaged in any trade, business, or profession. The same Form requires an undertaking that if the applicant later takes up any such engagement, she will inform the Council and cease to practise as an Advocate.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The bench accepted, as a general proposition, the appellant's argument that merely holding a right to practise a profession does not mean a person is actually “engaged” in it. The court drew an analogy: a person holding a driving licence is not thereby engaged in driving vehicles. Equally, obtaining a law degree and passing the bar examination does not deem a person to be engaged as an Advocate.

However, the bench drew a distinction. Where a person goes further and takes the steps mandated under a regulatory statute to get her name registered and entered in the list of practitioners, that act manifests an intention to engage in that profession. On the facts, the appellant had voluntarily applied for and obtained registration as a Homeopathic practitioner. The definition of “practitioner” under the 2021 Act uses the present continuous tense, indicating that a person registered under the Act and whose name appears in the “List of persons in practice” holds out to the public that she is engaged in the practice of Homeopathic medicine.

The bench therefore concluded that while the appellant's name continued in that list, her application for enrolment as an Advocate could not be considered without offending the statutory object and express provisions of the Advocates Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

On the appellant's reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [AIR 1978 SC 851] and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 6 SCC 545] — that the respondents could not justify their decision on grounds beyond those stated in Ext.P17 — the bench rejected the argument. It read Ext.P17 as merely deferring consideration of the application until the cancellation certificate was produced, not as an outright rejection. Since the deferral was found to be justified on the statutory provisions, the principle that an authority cannot supplement a rejection order with fresh reasons in a counter-affidavit did not apply.

The bench also addressed the argument that the bar against simultaneous practice would operate only after enrolment and not at the application stage. It rejected this squarely. The court held that in the light of the appellant's continued status as a Homeopathic medical practitioner, she could not prefer a valid application for enrolment as an Advocate in the first place. The bar was not triggered by enrolment; it prevented a valid application from being made at all.

The Form No.6 Declaration Problem

A separate and independent ground reinforced the court's conclusion. The appellant had in fact furnished a Form No.6 declaration stating that she was not currently practising Homeopathic medicine. The bench found this declaration to be factually incorrect. Her name continued to appear in the “List of persons in practice” under Section 26 of the 2021 Act. That statutory listing, the bench held, meant she could not truthfully declare that she was not engaged in the medical profession.

An application containing an inaccurate Form No.6 declaration could not be treated as a valid application meriting consideration under Section 26 of the Advocates Act. The bench put it plainly: the appellant could not, without first cancelling her Homeopathic registration, truthfully subscribe to the Form No.6 declaration.

The Court’s Observation on Re-Registration

Before closing, the bench expressed its inability to understand the appellant's reluctance to cancel her Homeopathic registration, given her stated eagerness to practise as an Advocate. It pointed to Section 29(2) of the 2021 Act, which expressly provides for re-registration as a medical practitioner if, at some future point, she wishes to give up legal practice and return to Homeopathic practice. The bench found no basis for any apprehension that she would be unable to re-register. It read Sections 29 and 31 of the 2021 Act together as making it clear that cancellation of her medical registration was a necessary step before she could take up practice in another profession.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed W.A. No.1170 of 2026, affirming the judgment of the Single Judge dated 18 May 2026 in W.P.(C) No.6893 of 2026, with the reasons in the writ appeal judgment supplementing those in the Single Judge's order. No order as to costs was made.