In a landmark decision, Kerala High Court has held that those without the necessary qualification and mandatory registration were not entitled to practice the Indian system of medicine in Kerala.
The division bench of the High Court has ruled that the mandatory registration has to be under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, or the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953.
The bench comprising Chief Justice J L Gupta and Justice M Ramachandran also held that those having the qualifications prescribed under second schedule, part C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act or the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, alone were entitled to get registration and practice ayurveda, siddha and unani.
The ruling was made by the bench while allowing two writ petitions by Vanchiyoor Madhaom Dhanwantri Sannidhanam and Ayurveda Medical Association for such a declaration and dismissed 44 petitions by Kerala Ayurveda Paramabarya Vaidaya Federation and Nattu Chikilsa Sangam, Katapana and others, who do not have the requisite qualification and sought registration under the Tranvacore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 for grant of recognition. The Bench also accepted the argument advanced by Sebastian Champappilly, counsel for the petitioners, Vanchiyoor Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam, Thiruvananthapuram, and Ayurveda Medical Association of India that persons without the recognised qualification and the mandatory registration were not entitled to manufacture any ayurvedic medicine.
This decision will affect the practice of ayurveda, sidha and unani systems of medicine by nearly 20,000 `paramparya vaidyas' in the State. The court also held that one year after the coming into force of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act on April 1, 1953, no person without the prescribed qualification was entitled to get registration. The Bench, however, refused to interfere with the grant of registration to several `paramparya vaidyas' one year after the coming into force of the 1953 Act.
The Bench allowed two writ petitions filed by Vanchiyoor Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam and Ayurveda Medical Association of India for such declaration, and dismissed 44 writ petitions filed by Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidaya Federation, Ernakulam, Bharathiya Pramparya Nattu Chikilsa Sangham, Kattappana, and such other associations representing paramparya vaidyas without the prescribed qualification, seeking to grant registration under the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act or, in the alternative, give them exemption from section 38 which prohibits practice by unqualified persons.
The Bench, however, did not go into the question whether section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act is repugnant to the provisions of section 17 read with sections 14 and 23 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act and is, therefore, unconstitutional.