Registered Homeopathic Doctor Cannot Enroll As Practicing Advocate Without Cancelling Medical Registration: Kerala High Court

The Court held that merely possessing a professional qualification does not mean a person is engaged in that profession. However, once a qualified person voluntarily registers as a practitioner and remains listed in the official register of persons in practice, it amounts to holding out to the public that they are engaged in that profession. Therefore, a person registered as a medical practitioner cannot simultaneously seek enrolment as a practising Advocate.

A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. while upholding the decision of the Single Judge Bench, observed, “…We are of the view that the appellant cannot, without cancelling her registration as a Homeopathic Medical practitioner, truthfully subscribe to a declaration in Form No.6 under the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, that she is not engaged in the medical profession as a Homeopathic medical practitioner. Viewed from another angle, the appellant's was not a case where the bar against simultaneous practice would be attracted only after her enrolment as an Advocate. It was one where, in the light of her continued status as a Homeopathic medical practitioner, she could not prefer a valid application for enrolment as an Advocate”.

Senior Advocate O.V. Radhakrishnan appeared for the appellant and Advocate P. Ramakrishnan appeared for the respondent.

The appellant, a qualified Homeopathic doctor registered under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, subsequently completed a three-year LL.B. course and cleared the All India Bar Examination.

When she applied to the Bar Council of Kerala for enrolment, the Enrolment Committee deferred her application, insisting on the production of a registration cancellation certificate from the Medical Council.

The appellant challenged this condition, arguing that she had already closed her clinic and that merely retaining her name on the medical register did not mean she was actively "engaged" in the medical profession. A Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, prompting the appeal.

Dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench rejected the appellant's contentions and illuminated the statutory bar against dual professions:

Manifestation of Intent: The Court observed that while merely acquiring a professional degree does not mean a person is "engaged" in that profession, taking formal steps to enter one's name into an official register dynamically changes that status.

Holding Out to the Public: Under Section 26 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, keeping one's name active in the "List of persons in practice" constitutes holding oneself out to the public as an active practitioner of medicine.

Falsity of Enrolment Declaration: Chapter V, Rule 2(h) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules mandates that every applicant submit a declaration (Form No. 6) explicitly affirming that they are not engaged in any other trade, business, or profession. The Court held that an applicant cannot truthfully subscribe to this declaration while maintaining active registration as a medical practitioner.

Professional Integrity: The Bench emphasized that the primary objective of both regulatory regimes is to ensure the highest professional standards, which cannot be diluted by sharing commitment and dedication with another equally challenging profession.

“It will be clear from a perusal of the statutory provisions noticed above, that the statutory scheme under both the regulatory Statutes referred above frowns upon persons carrying on the two professions – medical and legal, simultaneously. The apparent object of the said provisions is to ensure maintenance of the highest professional standards in the profession concerned undiluted through a sharing of commitment and dedication with another equally challenging profession. It is by keeping in mind the said statutory objective that we must test the legality of the action of the Bar Council of Kerala that insisted upon a cancellation of the appellant's registration certificate under the 2021 Act, as a precondition for considering her application for enrolment under the Advocates Act”, the Bench said.

Finding the Bar Council's insistence on a cancellation certificate entirely justified, the High Court dismissed the appeal without costs.

“…we must confess to our inability to fathom the reason for the reluctance on the part of the appellant to cancel her certificate of registration as a Homeopathic medical practitioner, more so in the light of her eagerness and ardent interest to practice as an Advocate. Section 29(2) of the 2021 Act clearly provides for a reregistration as a registered medical practitioner if at some time in the future, she wishes to give up legal practice and return to Homeopathic medical practice. We see no basis for the apprehension expressed on behalf of the appellant that she may not be permitted to re-register under the 2021 Act once she cancels her present registration. On the contrary, a reading of Sections 29 and 31 of the 2021 Act make it abundantly clear that the appellant has to cancel her registration under that Act, if she intends to take up practice in another profession”, the Bench had observed.

Cause Title: T.M. Manju v. Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:42951)

Appearances:

Appellant: O.V. Radhakrishnan (Sr.), H. Vishnudas, George Varghese, Advocates.

Respondent: P. Ramakrishnan, Preethi Ramakrishnan, Pratap Abraham Varghese, Manojkumar G., Ashok Menon, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment