Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 15-12-2020 in case of petitioner name Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission Sch vs The Secretary, Ministry of AYU
| |

Supreme Court Modifies Kerala High Court Order on Homeopathic Treatment for COVID-19

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homeo Pharmacy vs. The Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH & Others, addressed the restrictions imposed on homeopathic practitioners in prescribing medicines related to COVID-19. The case revolved around a Kerala High Court judgment that confined homeopathic treatment to immunity boosters rather than symptom management or preventive interventions for COVID-19.

Background of the Case

  • The Ministry of AYUSH issued an advisory on March 6, 2020, recognizing the role of homeopathy in COVID-19 prevention and symptom management.
  • The Kerala High Court, on August 21, 2020, ruled that homeopathy could only be prescribed as an immunity booster, barring its use for COVID-19 treatment.
  • Homeopathic practitioners challenged this ruling, arguing that the advisory explicitly allowed broader application.
  • The Supreme Court was called to decide whether the Kerala High Court misinterpreted the AYUSH advisory and unfairly restricted homeopathy’s role in COVID-19 management.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homeo Pharmacy, argued:

  • The High Court’s ruling wrongly restricted homeopathic practitioners to prescribing immunity boosters alone.
  • The AYUSH guidelines permitted homeopathy for prevention, symptom management, and as an adjunct to conventional treatment.
  • Many state governments had adopted homeopathy for COVID-19 prevention, contradicting the Kerala High Court’s stance.
  • Homeopathic practitioners were being unfairly targeted, with potential penalties under the Disaster Management Act.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Ministry of AYUSH and the Kerala government countered:

  • The AYUSH advisory did not allow homeopathy as a cure for COVID-19.
  • Homeopathic medicines could be given for prevention and general immunity but should not be misrepresented as a treatment.
  • The Disaster Management Act was applicable to any misleading medical claims, including from homeopathic practitioners.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, made several key observations:

1. AYUSH Advisory Permitted Homeopathy Beyond Immunity Boosting

The Court clarified that homeopathy was permitted for prevention, symptom management, and as an adjunct to conventional treatment, as per the advisory.

“The AYUSH advisory does not limit homeopathic interventions to immunity boosters alone. It clearly allows homeopathic medicines for preventive and symptom management purposes.”

2. Kerala High Court’s Restrictions Were Overly Narrow

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interpretation was incorrect and too restrictive.

“The Kerala High Court failed to fully appreciate the scope of the AYUSH advisory and imposed limitations beyond what was intended.”

3. No Claim of Cure Allowed

The Court emphasized that while homeopathy could aid in prevention and symptom management, practitioners could not claim it as a cure for COVID-19.

“No medical system, including allopathy, has conclusively established a single cure for COVID-19. Homeopathy should not make such claims either.”

4. No Blanket Action Against Homeopathic Practitioners

The Court ruled that action under the Disaster Management Act should only be taken against those making false claims, not all homeopathic practitioners.

“Authorities must ensure that homeopathic practitioners are not penalized for practicing within the scope of the AYUSH guidelines.”

Final Judgment

  • The Supreme Court modified the Kerala High Court’s order.
  • Homeopathy was recognized for COVID-19 prevention, symptom management, and as an adjunct to conventional treatment.
  • Homeopathic practitioners could not claim to cure COVID-19.
  • Action under the Disaster Management Act was limited to those making misleading claims.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

  • Ensures homeopathy’s role in COVID-19 management aligns with AYUSH guidelines.
  • Prevents undue restrictions on homeopathic practitioners.
  • Maintains accountability by prohibiting false treatment claims.
  • Clarifies the regulatory framework for alternative medicine during health crises.

The Supreme Court’s judgment upholds medical diversity while ensuring public health integrity.


Petitioner Name: Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homeo Pharmacy.
Respondent Name: The Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 15-12-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Dr. AKB Sadbhavana M vs The Secretary, Minis Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-12-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts