The tussle over the “Dr” prefix highlights a broader debate about professional recognition for allied health practitioners in India.
Published Nov 07, 2025 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Nov 07, 2025 | 7:00 AM
Representational image. Credit: iStock
Synopsis: The Kerala High Court on 4 November 2025 barred physiotherapists and occupational therapists from using the “Dr” prefix without recognised medical qualifications, issuing an interim order in IAPMR’s petition. Citing conflicts with the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916, the court mandates they function under qualified doctors. The case, sparked by NCAHP’s withdrawn directive, resumes on 1 December amid debates on professional recognition.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, 4 November 2025, directed authorities to ensure that physiotherapists and occupational therapists do not use the prefix “Dr” in their professional titles unless they hold a recognised medical qualification.
The interim order, passed by Justice VG Arun, came on a petition (WP(C) No. 41064 of 2025) filed by the Indian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (IAPMR), which argued that these professionals should function strictly under qualified medical practitioners and must not present themselves as primary healthcare providers.
The court noted a prima facie case, citing a conflict between the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916, and the clauses in the Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy – Approved Syllabus, 2025 (Exts. P1 and P1(a)).
The bench directed the competent authorities to ensure that the prefix “Dr” is not used by physiotherapists and occupational therapists without recognised medical qualifications. The case is listed for further hearing on 1 December, 2025.
The issue of physiotherapists using the title “Dr” has been contentious for over a year. In April 2025, the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) issued a directive allowing physiotherapists to use the prefix “Dr” along with the suffix “PT”
The move also brought admissions to physiotherapy courses under the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and extended the course duration to five years, including a year-long internship aimed at improving clinical competence.
Karnataka Minister for Medical Education and Skill Development, Sharan Prakash Patil, had welcomed the directive, highlighting the growing domestic and international demand for trained physiotherapists.
However, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the IAPMR raised objections, arguing that physiotherapists are not trained as medical doctors and that using the prefix “Dr” could mislead patients and the public.
In September 2025, the Union Health Ministry’s Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) withdrew its earlier communication permitting physiotherapists to use the prefix, citing court rulings and legal provisions under the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916.
The Kerala High Court’s order comes after IAPMR’s writ petition sought to prevent physiotherapists and occupational therapists from presenting themselves as primary healthcare providers or using the prefix “Dr” in professional settings.
The petition pointed out that the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, in its earlier order (Ext. P4), had directed the removal of the “Dr” prefix from the 2025 Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy on the grounds that it violated the Indian Medical Degrees Act.
Although this order was later withdrawn (Ext. P5), the court observed that the conflict between the law and the syllabus remains unresolved.
The judgment also highlighted that physiotherapists and occupational therapists should function only as a supporting group under qualified medical professionals until the case is fully resolved.
By issuing this interim direction, the court aims to prevent confusion among patients and maintain legal clarity regarding the use of medical titles.
The tussle over the “Dr” prefix highlights a broader debate about professional recognition for allied health practitioners in India. Physiotherapy associations have long argued that the depth of their academic and clinical training justifies formal recognition as doctors, particularly at the postgraduate level.
On the other hand, medical bodies maintain that allowing such usage could blur the line between qualified medical practitioners and allied health professionals, potentially putting patients at risk.
The Kerala HC order, combined with earlier directives and withdrawals, reflects the ongoing balancing act between legal provisions, professional identity, and patient safety.
While the interim order restricts the use of “Dr” for physiotherapists and occupational therapists, the matter will be revisited in court in December, keeping the debate much alive.
(Edited by Amit Vasudev)
