![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/683702-llbbanner-01jpg.webp\")
<\/a> ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/684816-llb-bannerjpg.webp\")
<\/a> <\/p>\nThe petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities to permit the petitioner to operate his Clinic and to practice modern medicine.<\/p>\n
It was his case that he had obtained Vocational Certificate (Community Health) in the year 2005 from the National Institute of Open Schooling, and based on said certificate, he is eligible to practice modern scientific medicine.<\/p>\n
However, the CMO had rejected his representation, noting that the petitioner was practising and treating patients with allopathic medicines without being registered in the CMO’s office, as required by the relevant Government Orders.<\/p>\n
It was stated in the rejection order that the holder of a certificate\/diploma in Electrohomeopathy cannot practice allopathic medicine, as this is prohibited by Government Orders.<\/p>\n
The authorities also highlighted that the clinic did not meet the standards set under the relevant Clinical Establishment regulations.<\/p>\n
The facility lacked a biomedical waste management system and a fire NOC, and the hospital was not found to be observing infection prevention and control systems.<\/p>\n
In fact, unqualified doctors were found to be practising modern medicine on the premises.<\/p>\n
High Court’s observations<\/p>\n
The High Court bench strongly supported the State’s stance that a certificate in electrohomeopathy does not confer the authority to practice modern medicine.<\/p>\n
“A person can practice in allopathic system of medicine in State or in the country only if he possesses a recognized medical qualification”, the Court noted. <\/p>\n
It added that permitting individuals without recognized allopathic qualifications to practice would be in direct conflict with the statutes governing the field.<\/p>\n
“The health of public at large is the primary responsibility of the State Government. As such, any quack cannot be permitted to play with the health of the general public. The practice of medicine is regulated by the Statutes and Government Orders, which occupy the field and prescribe standards. It is the State’s duty to protect public health from unqualified practitioners”, the bench further observed. <\/p>\n
The division bench relied upon the Supreme Court’s rulings in the cases of Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel 1996<\/a> and Dr. Mukhtar Chand Vs. State of Punjab 1998<\/a>, the High Court reiterated the following principles:<\/p>\n A practitioner registered under one system of medicine cannot transgress and practice another system, particularly ‘allopathy’, without the requisite qualification and registration. Doing so amounts to negligence per se, exposing both the practitioner and the public to grave risk A practitioner of the Indian system of medicine cannot prescribe allopathic drugs unless expressly permitted by the governing statute or rules. <\/p>\n In view of this, the High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to show any valid qualification to practice allopathic medicine and that his clinic failed to meet the standards prescribed by various Government Orders and the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) Act, 2020, and refused to allow his plea.<\/p>\n “This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its own wisdom and findings for those of competent expert authorities,” the bench remarked while dismissing the plea. <\/p>\n Case Title – Santosh Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 402<\/p>\n Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 402<\/p>\n