Electro-Homeopathy Is Regulated Medicine, Not a Free Therapy: Kerala High Court

A Kerala High Court Division Bench held that Electro-Homeopathy falls under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and its 2021 successor, overturning a Single Judge's contrary finding.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has ruled that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is regulated by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, and that a practitioner cannot carry on such practice without the registration those statutes require. The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. delivered the judgment on 17 June 2026 in W.A. No. 1737 of 2020, allowing the appeal filed by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council. In doing so, the Bench dismissed the underlying writ petition and also declared an earlier Division Bench judgment on the same question to be per incuriam for failing to notice the statutory provisions that were in force at the time.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Rajesh K., a resident of Kannur, held a diploma in Electro-Homeopathic medicine issued by the Council of Electro Homeopathic System of Medicine, Kanpur, U.P. He filed W.P.(C) No. 19208 of 2019 before the Kerala High Court, alleging that the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council had used the State's police machinery to interfere with his practice of Electro-Homeopathy without establishing any illegality on his part.

The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition relied on an earlier Division Bench judgment in W.P.(C) No. 19484 of 2008. In that earlier case, the court had found that, in the absence of any material showing that Electropathy or Electro-Homeopathy was prohibited by law, the police could not interfere with a citizen's practice of it. The Single Judge applied the same reasoning and allowed the writ petition, holding that the rule of law requires the State to show the legal basis for any interference with a citizen's activity.

The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council challenged that judgment in the present writ appeal.

The Statutory Framework in Contention

Before the Division Bench, counsel for the Council argued that the Single Judge's assumption — that Electro-Homeopathy was unregulated — was factually incorrect. He pointed to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, which succeeded it. Under those enactments, every person ordinarily engaged in the practice of Homeopathic medicine is subject to regulatory requirements, including registration and entry of the practitioner's name in the published list of practitioners.

The Council's counsel drew attention to the diploma certificate produced by Rajesh K. itself. A perusal of that certificate, he submitted, showed that the qualification was in Electro-Homeopathic medicine — a branch of Homeopathic medicine — and therefore the practitioner could not contend that his practice fell outside the regulatory statutes.

Rajesh K.'s counsel countered that Electro-Homeopathy was merely a therapy, comparable to aromatherapy or naturopathy, and was not regulated by the statutes the Council relied upon. He also pressed the earlier Division Bench judgment as a binding precedent supporting the Single Judge's view.

Why the Division Bench Rejected the Earlier Precedent

The Bench examined the 2008 Division Bench judgment carefully and declined to treat it as a precedent for the proposition that Electro-Homeopathy is unregulated. The court identified two distinct reasons for this.

First, the 2008 judgment had proceeded to decide the matter in the absence of any material placed before it pointing to a law prohibiting the practice. Critically, that judgment made no reference to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, which was in force at the time. The Division Bench held that a judgment rendered without noticing statutory provisions that held the field is per incuriam and cannot bind a later court.

Second, the Bench rejected the broader legal proposition that had underpinned both the 2008 judgment and the Single Judge's reasoning: that a citizen in India has an absolute liberty to do anything unless expressly prohibited by law. The court held that this proposition is incompatible with India's written Constitution. The concept of absolute liberty, the Bench observed, is alien to Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Rights and liberties under the Constitution are protected only as they remain when balanced against a citizen's corresponding duties and obligations towards fellow citizens.

Qualification in Homeopathy Attracts Regulatory Oversight

Turning to the facts, the Bench found that Rajesh K.'s diploma, even assuming it was a recognised qualification, was in a branch of Homeopathic medicine. That being so, he would be regulated by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 if he practised as an Electro-Homeopathic practitioner.

The court addressed the argument that the right to practise a profession under the Constitution shields such practice from regulation. It acknowledged that a citizen does hold a fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. However, the Bench held that this right is not absolute. It is subject to laws regulating professional qualification and conduct enacted to balance the rights of the professional against the right to life and proper healthcare of persons who receive medical care and treatment.

The Bench stated plainly that to hold otherwise “would be disastrous for the people of this country, for, it is their lives that are at stake.”

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed W.A. No. 1737 of 2020 filed by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council. The writ petition filed by Rajesh K. in W.P.(C) No. 19208 of 2019 was dismissed. The court issued a declaration that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is regulated by the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, as applicable.