Kerala HC: Homoeopath Must Cancel Medical Registration Before Enrolling as Advocate
A registered Homoeopath who cancelled her clinic licence but retained her medical registration was lawfully denied enrolment as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Kerala, the High Court held.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has held that a registered medical practitioner of Homoeopathy can be denied permission to enrol as an Advocate unless her registration as a Homoeopath is first cancelled. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, sitting singly, dismissed a writ petition filed by T.M. Manju Gowreesankaram, who had completed a three-year LL.B. course and cleared the All India Bar Examination but was refused enrolment by the Bar Council of Kerala's Enrolment Committee because her name continued to appear in the State register of medical practitioners. The judgment, delivered on 18 May 2026, turns on the meaning of “engaged in any profession” under Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, and the interplay between that rule and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021.
The Dispute Before the Court
Manju Gowreesankaram obtained a Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine degree on 7 April 2008 and practised as a Homoeopathic consultant from 2017 to 2022 in her own building. In February 2022, she cancelled the licence issued by the Kalamassery Municipality to run her Homoeopathic clinic. She then pursued a three-year Unitary LL.B. course from 2022 to 2025 and cleared the All India Bar Examination.
On 17 November 2025, she applied to the Bar Council of Kerala for enrolment as an Advocate. She was called for physical verification of documents on 13 December 2025. The Enrolment Committee noticed that she had not uploaded a cancellation certificate from the Homoeopathic Council, that is, proof that her registration as a medical practitioner had been cancelled and directed her to do so.
In response, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 5 December 2025 stating that she had cancelled the clinic licence and had not practised Homoeopathy since then. She also submitted an undertaking in Form No. 6 as required under Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, stating that upon enrolment she would not practise medicine simultaneously, and that if she ever decided to return to medicine she would inform the Bar Council and suspend her enrolment.
Despite the undertaking, the petitioner's name did not appear in the enrolment list for January 2026. She learnt through the Enrolment Committee's proceedings (Ext.P17) that her application would be considered only after she produced a cancellation certificate from the Homoeopathic Council. With another enrolment ceremony approaching in March 2026, she filed WP(C) No. 6893 of 2026 seeking, among other reliefs, quashing of Ext.P17, a declaration that she be deemed enrolled from January 2026, a direction to enrol her at the next ceremony, and compensation for wrongful denial.
In their counter affidavit, the Bar Council respondents pointed out that the petitioner's name remained in the list of medical practitioners published in the Gazette under Section 30 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. They also noted that in a letter dated 3 January 2026, the petitioner had herself stated that cancelling her Homoeopathic registration would prevent her from returning to the medical profession later, which, they argued showed she had not genuinely given up the profession.
The Legal Question
The central question was whether the Bar Council could refuse enrolment to a person whose name remained on the register of medical practitioners, even where that person had cancelled her clinic licence and given an undertaking not to practise medicine after enrolment.
Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the obligations under Rule 2(h) of the BCK Rules arise only after enrolment, not before it. The Bar Council, he submitted, had no legal basis to deny enrolment merely because the petitioner's name appeared in the medical register. Denying her the right to enrol, he contended, violated her fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He added that after enrolment, if she refused to cancel her medical registration, the Bar Council would be free to take appropriate steps but that did not give it the right to refuse enrolment at the threshold.
Senior Counsel for the Bar Council countered that the Bar Council has a duty to ensure that an applicant is not engaged in any other profession at the time of enrolment. He drew the Court's attention to both the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, arguing that those statutes themselves restrict a registered medical practitioner from following another profession without the sanction of the relevant Council.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas began by examining what “engaged in any profession” means under Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the BCK Rules. The rule requires every applicant for enrolment to file a declaration that he or she is not in full or part-time employment or service and is not engaged in any trade, business or profession (with a limited exception for part-time law teachers).
Drawing on the dictionary meaning of “engage” and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Carew and Co. v. Union of India [(1975) 2 SCC 791], the Court held that a person who has a right to involve himself or embark upon a particular profession must be regarded as engaged in that profession. The right to practise a profession, which entitles a person to earn remuneration or profit, is sufficient to treat that person as engaged in it.
The Court also relied on a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Bar Council of India v. Mary Tresa and Others [2006 (2) KLT 210], which had held that if a person is engaged in another profession, he cannot enrol as an Advocate, and that “engaged” means earning profit or remuneration. The Court extended that reasoning: when an applicant's name is registered in the State rolls as a medical practitioner, it is practically impossible to verify whether she is actually practising or earning from that profession. Accordingly, “engaged in any profession” under Rule 2(h) must be read as being entitled to, or having a right to, pursue another profession with the possibility of earning remuneration.
The Court then turned to the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. Section 30(3) of that Act creates a presumption that every person whose name is entered in the published list is a registered practitioner. Section 31(2) provides that a registered medical practitioner shall not follow any other profession without the sanction of the Council concerned, as long as his name continues in the register. Section 36 prohibits any person other than those registered under the Act from practising any of the fields of medicine listed therein, including Homoeopathy.
Reading these provisions together, the Court concluded that as long as the petitioner's name remained in the register of medical practitioners, she retained the right to practise Homoeopathy and was, in law, engaged in that profession. Mere cancellation of the municipality licence to run the clinic did not satisfy the requirements of the MP Act 2021. The petitioner's undertaking, while noted, could not override the statutory position.
On the petitioner's argument that the BCK Rules apply only post-enrolment, the Court was unpersuaded. Once the Enrolment Committee becomes aware that an applicant is entitled to practise another profession, it is at liberty under law to deny enrolment. The power to filter persons eligible to practise law is not confined to the stage after commencement of practice; it can be exercised at the threshold itself.
The Court also addressed the constitutional dimension. It accepted that the petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practise any profession. However, that right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The restriction imposed by Rule 2(h) of the BCK Rules, requiring an applicant not to be engaged in another profession, has already been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa [(1996) 3 SCC 342]. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that the legal profession requires full-time attention and does not countenance an advocate “riding two horses or more at a time”, and that a State Bar Council is justified in framing a rule prohibiting entry to a professional who insists on carrying on another profession simultaneously.
Justice Thomas observed that a professional cannot share allegiance with another profession, as such divided loyalty can lead to compromising the values of each profession. Bar Councils are empowered not only to ensure professional excellence but also to identify persons unsuitable to the profession, and that power extends to the point of entry.
Outcome
The Court held that a registered medical practitioner of Homoeopathy can be denied permission to enrol as an Advocate unless her registration as a Homoeopath is cancelled. The Enrolment Committee's direction in Ext.P17, requiring the petitioner to produce a cancellation certificate from the Homoeopathic Council, was found to be legally sound and was not interfered with.
All reliefs sought by the petitioner, including the claim for damages for wrongful denial of enrolment, were rejected as without merit. The writ petition was dismissed.