The council alleged that the doctors were administering IV fluids, injections and prescribing modern medicines, activities they claimed constituted "illegal practice amounting to quackery".
Published Sep 14, 2025 | 1:11 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 14, 2025 | 1:11 PM
Representative Image. (AI-generated)
Synopsis: The Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two Ayurvedic doctors and one Unani doctor who were accused by the Telangana Medical Council of illegally practising allopathic medicine. The court noted that the council violated prescribed procedures by directly filing police complaints instead of following the statutory framework outlined in the Medical Council rules.
In a significant legal victory for alternative medicine practitioners, the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two Ayurvedic doctors and one Unani doctor who were accused by the Telangana Medical Council (TMC) of illegally practising allopathic medicine.
Justice N Tukaramji ruled that while these practitioners cannot legally prescribe allopathic drugs, the medical council had violated prescribed procedures by directly filing police complaints instead of following the statutory framework outlined in the Medical Council rules.
The judgement comes amid ongoing tensions between traditional and modern medical practitioners, highlighting the complex regulatory landscape governing medical practice in India and the importance of procedural compliance in enforcement actions.
The controversy began when the TMC conducted surprise inspections at multiple clinics in Cyberabad and Sangareddy districts. The raids targeted establishments run by practitioners holding Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degrees, including Navakanth at Care & Cure Clinic in Nizampet, H Lokesh at LIFE Poly Clinic in Sangareddy, and Ayesha Begum (BUMS) at AL-Shifa Clinic.
According to the TMC’s complaints, these practitioners were allegedly “advertising themselves to the general public as Allopathic Doctors, without possessing the MBBS Qualification and illegally practising allopathic medicine and prescribing allopathic drugs.”
The council alleged that the doctors were administering Intravenous (IV) fluids, injections and prescribing modern medicines, activities they claimed constituted “illegal practice amounting to quackery”.
The TMC’s vigilance officer and registrar filed detailed complaints describing how these practitioners were “illegally set-up establishments with consultation rooms for treating patients” and were “also illegally giving injections and IV-Fluids (Salines), etc to patients”. The complaints emphasised that such practices “adversely affect public health” and that patients were “being misled into believing that he is a qualified allopathic doctor, which could lead to severe consequences, including misdiagnosis and improper treatment.”
Based on these complaints, police registered cases under multiple provisions, including Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to cheating and impersonation, Section 34 read with Section 54 of the National Medical Commission Act, and Section 22 read with Section 20(ii) of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act.
The accused doctors mounted a comprehensive legal defence challenging both the substantive allegations and the procedural validity of the complaints. Their counsel argued that all three practitioners were “duly qualified BAMS, BUMS degree holders and hold valid registration with the Government of Telangana, Board of Indian Medicine, and under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020.”
Central to their defence was the contention that they “have never represented themselves as MBBS doctors and are engaged in legally permissible medical practice.”
The petitioners relied on historical precedents, including a 1996 notification issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) and an Ayush Memorandum dated 30 March 2017, which they argued “permitted Ayurvedic practitioners to practice modern scientific medicine to a limited extent.”
However, the most significant aspect of their defence focused on procedural irregularities. The petitioners argued that “under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013, any allegations against non-allopathic practitioners should first be referred to the Commissioner of AYUSH, not directly to the police.”
They contended that the TMC “had no suo motu power under Rule 8(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013 to initiate the proceedings.”
The defence also highlighted that the complaints “lacked particulars regarding prescriptions or instances of impersonation,” which they deemed necessary to invoke the cheating and impersonation charges under the BNS.
The Telangana Medical Council vigorously defended its actions, maintaining that it was “the competent authority, empowered to initiate prosecution” against practitioners of alternative medicine systems who practice allopathic medicine.
The TMC argued that “persons holding qualifications in Indian systems of medicine are not entitled to practice or prescribe allopathic medicine” and that such practices constituted “illegal practice amounting to quackery.”
The council relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr Mukhtiar Chand and Others v. State of Punjab (1998), arguing that the legal position was “well-settled” regarding the limitations on non-allopathic practitioners. The TMC also contended that “lodging a police report by a statutory body like TMC is permissible under Rule 8(9) of the APMC Rules.”
Regarding procedural challenges, the TMC argued that “any privilege available to registered practitioners under the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 extends only to the field of medicine in which they are qualified, and cannot be stretched to permit them to practice allopathy.”
Justice Tukaramji conducted an exhaustive examination of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2013, which proved pivotal to the judgment. The court found that the rule “contemplates five distinct situations, each with a corresponding legal mechanism for enforcement.”
The five situations identified by the court are:
First, cases involving “unqualified persons or quacks, having no recognised medical qualification, found to be practising modern medicine.” In such cases, the Medical Council is required to file a complaint with the local police under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Act, 1968.
Second, cases where “de-registered practitioners of modern medicine continue to practice without surrendering their registration certificates,” which constitutes professional misconduct and attracts disciplinary action under Rule 8(2)(c) of the APMC Rules.
Third, cases involving registered practitioners of modern medicine engaging in unethical practices in violation of the prescribed professional code of conduct. Here, the Medical Council, upon conducting an inquiry and inspection, is empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Fourth, the most relevant to this case, involves non-allopathic practitioners, such as those qualified in Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy, or Siddha, found to be practising modern medicine in contravention of law. In such cases, “upon receipt of information from the Medical Council, the Commissioner, AYUSH, is mandated to initiate appropriate administrative and regulatory action under Government Memo No. 8914/L2/97-1, dated 17-03-1997.”
Fifth, cases where “chemists dispense modern drugs on the basis of prescriptions issued by non-allopathic practitioners.” Here, proceedings are to be initiated by the Drugs Inspector or Drugs Control Authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.”
The court’s analysis led to a crucial legal distinction that formed the basis for quashing the cases. Justice Tukaramji observed that while the TMC’s allegations suggested the petitioners were practising illegally, their conduct did not fall under the category of “quackery” as defined in medical law.
“The allegation of the Respondent No.2/TMC is that the petitioners who are registered practitioners under the system of Indian Medicine are prescribing modern system of medicine. This imputation is taken as it is, the same would not qualify the category of quackery, but rather under the fourth situation identified above, namely, non-allopathic practitioners practicing modern medicine,” the judgement stated.
This classification was critical because it determined the proper enforcement mechanism. The court ruled that “the prescribed course of action under the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, and the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council rules should be upon information, the Commissioner, AYUSH is the competent authority to take up further course of action.”
Consequently, the court held that “the Respondent No.2/TMC directly lodging police report for prosecution is impermissible under the prescribed Rules.”
Beyond the primary procedural violation, the court identified two additional fundamental defects in the TMC’s approach:
National Medical Commission Act violation
The court examined Section 54 of the NMC Act, which “prescribes that no Court may take cognisance of offences punishable under the Act except upon a written complaint made by an authorised officer of the National Medical Commission, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board, or the relevant State Medical Council.”
Since “the prosecution proceedings were initiated upon the police report of the Respondent No.2/TMC,” the court found this to be a “foundational defect” that rendered “this accusation cannot be maintained.”
Insufficient particulars for cheating charges
Regarding the allegations under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the BNS for cheating and impersonation, the court found significant evidentiary gaps. While acknowledging that “initiation of proceedings by the Respondent No.2/TMC is ex facie acceptable” for cognizable offences, the court noted that “the particulars of the persons who are deceived and the manner of impersonation are conspicuously absent.”
The court concluded that “the allegation against the petitioners per se that they have prescribed modern scientific medicine by holding registration under the Indian system of medicine alone, without some particular, would fall short in making out a prima facie case of cheating and impersonation.”
Despite quashing the cases on procedural grounds, the court was careful to reaffirm established legal principles regarding medical practice. Justice Tukaramji explicitly stated that “it is clear that the registered practitioners of Indian Medicine are not entitled to prescribe allopathic medicine and such practice is impermissible.”
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in DrMukhtiar Chand, which established that “a harmonious reading of Section 15 of 1956 Act and Section 17 of 1970 Act leads to the conclusion that there is no scope for a person enrolled on the State Register of Indian medicine or Central Register of Indian Medicine to practise modern scientific medicine in any of its branches unless that person is also enrolled on a State Medical Register within the meaning of 1956 Act.”
This reaffirmation ensured that the judgement could not be interpreted as providing blanket permission for alternative medicine practitioners to engage in allopathic practice.
In exercising its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash the FIRs, the court emphasised the careful considerations that govern such decisions. Justice Tukaramji noted that “this jurisdiction shall be exercised with care and caution” and cited established precedents requiring that quashment be justified to “prevent the abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice.”
The court found that the identified procedural violations and evidentiary deficiencies met the criteria for quashment, as the proceedings were fundamentally flawed in their initiation and lacked the particulars necessary to establish a prima facie case for certain charges.
Importantly, the court’s decision to quash the current proceedings did not foreclose future action by the TMC. Justice Tukaramji explicitly stated that “the rights of the Respondent No.2 are expressly reserved to proceed against the petitioners as per the prescriptions under relevant provisions and may seek prosecution with requisite particulars/details.”
This reservation ensures that if the TMC follows proper procedures and provides adequate evidence, it can still pursue action against practitioners who violate medical practice regulations. The judgment thus serves as a procedural correction rather than a substantive endorsement of unauthorised medical practice.
The Telangana High Court’s decision has significant implications for medical regulation across India, particularly regarding the enforcement mechanisms available to medical councils when dealing with practitioners of alternative medicine systems.
TMC has registered multiple complaints, which have been transformed into FIRs across the state against the practitioners of BUMS, BHMS, BAMS, as well as BDS, who were caught practising modern medicine/allopathic medicine in the state.
The judgement highlights the complex regulatory framework governing different medical systems and the need for careful coordination between various authorities, including medical councils, AYUSH commissioners, and law enforcement agencies.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
