In a significant ruling that reinforces the boundary between professional practices, the Kerala High Court has held that a registered homeopathy practitioner cannot be enrolled as an advocate unless they first cancel their registration as a medical practitioner.
In an order passed on May 18, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed a petition filed by a homeopathy doctor who challenged the Bar Council of Kerala’s (BCK) decision to deny her enrollment. Emphasizing that the legal profession demands undivided dedication, the court observed that divided loyalties could compromise the integrity of both fields.
“Splitting the professional soul between two masters can lead to losing focus in both professions,” Justice Thomas stated in the order. “Such divided loyalty cannot be countenanced in the profession of law as the said profession has often been stated to be a jealous mistress.”
The Pre-Entry Battle: Clinic Closure vs. Official Cancellation
The petitioner, a practicing homeopath, had completed her law degree and successfully cleared the All India Bar Examination. Eager to transition into the legal field, she shut down her private clinic and provided an undertaking that she would not practice medicine once enrolled as an advocate.
However, the Bar Council of Kerala insisted on a formal step: she had to completely cancel her medical registration before she could be admitted to the bar.
Challenging this requirement, the petitioner argued before the High Court that the Bar Council’s restrictions should only apply after a person is enrolled as an advocate, rather than acting as a barrier at the pre-entry stage. She further contended that denying her enrollment violated her fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Why the Right to Practice is Not Absolute
The High Court rejected the petitioner’s arguments, clarifying that the fundamental right to practice any profession is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
While an individual can expect to practice law after earning a degree and passing the bar exam, the court noted that BCK rules legitimately restrict entry if an applicant is actively “engaged in another profession.”
Justice Thomas pointed out that under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, anyone listed on the state register of medical practitioners is legally barred from pursuing another profession without explicit permission from the medical council or without cancelling their registration.
The court emphasized that simply shutting down a clinic or promising not to practice is insufficient under the law. As long as the petitioner’s name remains on the official register of medical practitioners, she projects to the world that she is still a practicing medical professional.
The Bar Council’s Right to ‘Weed Out’ Dual Practitioners
Defending its policy, the Bar Council of Kerala argued that the restriction is applied uniformly to prevent individuals from simultaneously pursuing two demanding careers. The council also noted that if the petitioner ever wished to return to medicine in the future, nothing prevented her from doing so. She could easily re-register as a medical practitioner after cancelling her license to practice law.
Supporting this stance, the Kerala High Court highlighted the broad authority of regulatory bodies under the Advocates Act, 1961. The court ruled that Bar Councils are established not only to maintain high professional standards but also to identify and weed out unsuitable candidates before they enter the field.
According to the court, the power to filter candidates and determine eligibility is not limited to active lawyers, but applies fully at the enrollment stage. If an applicant retains the legal right to practice another profession, the Bar Council is well within its rights to refuse entry.
