The Kerala High Court ruled that a registered homeopathy practitioner cannot enrol as an advocate unless her medical registration is cancelled, with Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas upholding the Bar Council of Kerala decision refusing dual professional registration.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a registered homeopathy practitioner cannot be enrolled as an advocate unless she first cancels her registration as a medical practitioner.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment while dismissing a petition filed by a homeopathy doctor who challenged the decision of the Bar Council of Kerala refusing to enroll her as an advocate unless she surrendered her registration as a medical professional.
The Kerala High Court ordered,
“Medical practitioner of Homoeopathy can be denied permission to enroll as an Advocate unless the registration as a Homoeopath is cancelled,”
The court added,
“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.”
Observations of the High Court
The High Court observed that a professional cannot simultaneously maintain allegiance to two different professions, especially when both demand complete commitment and ethical responsibility.
The Court remarked that divided loyalty could compromise the standards and values attached to each profession and may effectively result in a person serving two “masters” at the same time.
Emphasising the importance of maintaining professional integrity within the legal field, the Court noted that Bar Councils established under the Advocates Act, 1961 are not merely institutions responsible for maintaining professional excellence but are also tasked with identifying and excluding persons considered unsuitable for the legal profession.
The Court further clarified that the process of scrutiny by Bar Councils is not confined only to disciplinary proceedings after a person begins practising law. According to the judgment, the Bar Council has the authority to assess eligibility even at the stage of enrolment itself.
The Court observed that where an applicant continues to retain the right to practise another profession and remains officially registered in that profession, the Bar Council is fully empowered to refuse enrolment as an advocate.
The High Court also addressed the petitioner’s argument based on the fundamental right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Court held that the constitutional right to practise any profession is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
According to the Court, once a person acquires a law degree and clears the All India Bar Examination, they may ordinarily expect to be enrolled as an advocate. However, the Bar Council of Kerala Rules permit restrictions where an applicant continues to remain “engaged in another profession.”
Referring to provisions of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, the Court noted that a person whose name continues in the register of medical practitioners cannot pursue another profession without obtaining permission from the Council or cancelling the existing registration.
The Court observed that as long as the petitioner’s name remained on the official register of medical practitioners, she continued to project herself to the public as a practising medical professional.
It further clarified that merely shutting down a clinic or stopping active medical practice was insufficient in law if the registration itself remained valid.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner had earlier practised as a homeopathy doctor before pursuing legal education. She subsequently completed her law degree and also cleared the All India Bar Examination, making her otherwise eligible for enrolment as an advocate. After deciding to enter the legal profession, she reportedly shut down her clinic and gave an undertaking that she would not continue practising medicine after enrolment as an advocate.
Despite this assurance, the Bar Council insisted that she first cancel her registration as a homeopathy practitioner before her application for enrolment could be considered. Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the restrictions imposed by the Bar Council could only apply after enrolment as an advocate and not at the pre-enrolment stage.
She further contended that refusal to enrol her violated her constitutional right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g).
Bar Council Defends Its Decision
The Bar Council of Kerala defended its position by arguing that persons engaged in another profession cannot simultaneously be admitted to the legal profession.
The Bar Council submitted that the rule was uniformly enforced to prevent individuals from pursuing two professions at the same time, particularly where professional ethics and public confidence are involved.
It was also argued that if the petitioner genuinely intended to discontinue medical practice, nothing prevented her from cancelling her registration as a homeopathy practitioner.
According to the submissions made before the Court, the petitioner could always seek re-registration as a medical practitioner at a later stage if she decided to return to the profession in future.
Accepting these arguments, the High Court ultimately dismissed the plea and upheld the Bar Council’s decision refusing enrolment unless the petitioner cancelled her medical registration.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE