Kerala High Court news: The Kerala High Court has held that a registered homeopathy practitioner cannot be enrolled as an advocate unless she cancels her registration as a medical practitioner.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order while dismissing a plea filed by a homeopathy doctor who challenged the Bar Council of Kerala’s (BCK) decision refusing to enrol her as an advocate unless she cancelled her medical registration.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that a citizen’s fundamental right to practise any profession is subject to reasonable restrictions.
“Medical practitioner of Homoeopathy can be denied permission to enrol as an Advocate unless the registration as a Homoeopath is cancelled,” the Kerala High Court order dated May 18 stated, adding, “Splitting the professional soul between two masters can lead to losing focus in both professions. Such divided loyalty cannot be countenanced in the profession of law as the said profession has often been stated to be a jealous mistress.”
‘Professional can’t share allegiance’
- The Kerala High Court observed that a professional cannot share their allegiance with another profession and that such sharing of loyalty can lead to compromising the values of each profession and even result in serving two ‘masters’ at the same time.
- The Kerala High Court emphasised that Bar Councils are institutions set up under the Advocates Act, 1961, not only to ensure professional excellence, but also to identify and weed out elements that are unsuitable to the profession.
- It added that the filtration of persons or identifying persons eligible to practise the profession of law is not restricted to a stage only after they commence the practise of law.
- The court observed that if the Bar Council, based on the materials placed before it, finds that an applicant seeking enrolment retains the right to practise another profession and continues to be listed in the register of that profession, it is well within the council’s authority to refuse permission for enrolment as an advocate.
Right to practise any profession not absolute
- The Kerala High Court held that a citizen’s fundamental right to practise any profession is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, after acquiring the law degree and clearing the Bar examination, the petitioner can certainly expect to be permitted to enrol as an advocate. Nevertheless, by virtue of the BCK Rules, an applicant’s entry into the legal profession can be restricted if he/she is “engaged in another profession”, the court held.
- Referring to the provisions of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, the high court noted that if a person’s name is included in the list of registered medical practitioners, he cannot follow any other profession without permission from the Council or without cancelling his registration.
- The petitioner’s name continuing to remain in the list of registered medical practitioners of the state projects to the world that she is a medical practitioner, the Kerala High Court observed, adding that mere cancellation of the clinic’s licence does not satisfy the requirement of the aforementioned provisions of law.
- It, therefore, dismissed the plea.
Plea for enrolment
The petitioner had completed a law degree and cleared the All India Bar Examination after practising as a homeopath.
Though she had shut down her clinic and undertook not to practise medicine after enrolment as an advocate, the Bar Council insisted that she first cancel her registration as a homeopathy practitioner.
Before the Kerala High Court, the petitioner argued that the restriction imposed by the Bar Council could apply only after enrolment as an advocate and not at the pre-entry stage. She contended that the denial of enrolment violated her right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The state Bar Council, however, argued that a person engaged in another profession could not be admitted as an advocate and that the requirement was uniformly applied to prevent the simultaneous pursuit of two professions.
It was also submitted that if the petitioner did not wish to pursue the medical practice as a homeopath, nothing prevented her from cancelling the same, as it is always open to re-register herself as a medical practitioner later, after cancelling her licence to practice any other profession.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that a citizen’s fundamental right to practise any profession is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Share
