Supreme Court Bans Unqualified Ayurvedic and Siddha Practitioners in Kerala

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala & Others, upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision that unqualified practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani medicine cannot practice without a recognized qualification and registration. The Court ruled that allowing unregistered practitioners to continue would be hazardous to public health and violate existing medical regulations.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising R.K. Agrawal and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, emphasized that only those with recognized qualifications could be registered as medical practitioners under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (IMCC Act) and the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a legal challenge by the Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum, an association representing traditional healers (Paramparya Vaidyas) who learned medicine through hereditary training rather than formal education. These practitioners had been in the profession for generations and sought the right to practice without formal medical degrees.

The Kerala High Court dismissed their petitions in 2003, ruling that only registered practitioners with recognized qualifications could legally practice medicine. The Forum then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that their right to livelihood and their centuries-old tradition of healing should be protected.

Key Legal Issues

Whether unqualified traditional Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani practitioners should be allowed to practice medicine.
Whether the IMCC Act and the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act override traditional practices.
Whether banning these practitioners violates their constitutional right to livelihood.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ Arguments (Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum)

The petitioners argued:

That traditional practitioners (Paramparya Vaidyas) have been healing patients for centuries without modern medical qualifications.
That their knowledge is passed down through generations and has been effective in treating diseases.
That forcing them to acquire formal degrees would destroy an important aspect of Indian traditional medicine.
That their right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be violated if they were banned from practicing.
That the government had previously considered granting them legal recognition, and this should be reconsidered.

State of Kerala’s Arguments

The Kerala government, backed by the Medical Council of India, countered:

That practicing medicine without proper qualifications poses a serious risk to public health.
That the IMCC Act, 1970, clearly requires medical practitioners to have recognized qualifications.
That the Parliament has not granted an exemption for traditional healers who lack formal training.
That cases of medical malpractice have been reported due to unqualified practitioners.
That the law does not prohibit individuals from learning traditional medicine, but they cannot prescribe treatments or medicines without a formal license.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s ruling and dismissed the appeals of the Forum.

Unqualified Practitioners Pose a Risk to Public Health

The Court ruled:

“The right to practice medicine must be regulated to protect public health. Allowing unqualified individuals to prescribe medicines or perform treatments would endanger lives.”

IMCC Act Requires Recognized Qualifications

The Court observed that Section 17 of the IMCC Act prohibits individuals from practicing Ayurveda, Siddha, or Unani medicine unless they hold a recognized qualification:

“The IMCC Act is a central legislation that overrides state laws. It mandates that only individuals with recognized degrees can practice medicine. The law does not allow exceptions for traditional healers without formal qualifications.”

Right to Livelihood is Not Absolute

The Court addressed the argument that banning unqualified practitioners violated their constitutional right to livelihood:

“Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practice a profession, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. Practicing medicine requires professional qualifications to ensure public safety. The prohibition is justified to protect citizens from unqualified treatment.”

Government Can Provide Alternate Recognition, But Cannot Override Law

The Court acknowledged that the government could explore mechanisms to preserve traditional knowledge but held that it could not override statutory requirements:

“If the government wishes to recognize traditional practitioners, it must do so through a proper legal framework. However, the law as it stands does not permit practice without formal qualifications.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Kerala High Court’s ruling:

Unqualified traditional practitioners (Paramparya Vaidyas) cannot practice medicine unless they hold recognized qualifications.
All medical practitioners must be registered under the IMCC Act or the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act.
The right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to public safety considerations.
The Kerala government was directed to ensure that only qualified practitioners are allowed to practice medicine.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the importance of formal medical education and registration.
It prevents unqualified individuals from prescribing medicines and treating patients, reducing medical malpractice.
It ensures that the IMCC Act remains the standard for medical practice in India.
The ruling may encourage the government to develop certification programs for traditional healers.
The decision strengthens regulatory oversight over medical practice in India.

This landmark judgment ensures that only trained and qualified individuals can practice medicine, safeguarding public health while maintaining the integrity of traditional healing systems.

Petitioner Name: Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum.
Respondent Name: State of Kerala and Others.
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 13-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kerala Ayurveda Para vs State of Kerala and Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category