Kerala High Court Says Doctors Must Cancel Medical Registration Before Becoming Advocates

In T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., the Kerala High Court has ruled that a doctor cannot enrol as an advocate unless their registration as a medical practitioner is formally cancelled. The Court clarified that merely stopping medical practice or cancelling a clinic licence is not enough.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgement while dismissing a petition filed by a Homoeopathic practitioner whose application for enrolment as an advocate was kept pending by the Bar Council of Kerala. The petitioner had completed her law degree and cleared the All India Bar Examination after discontinuing her clinic operations.

The petitioner argued that she had already cancelled her municipal licence to run the clinic and had also given an undertaking that she would not practise medicine alongside law. She contended that Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 does not specifically require cancellation of medical registration before enrolment as an advocate.

However, the Bar Council maintained that a person seeking enrolment in the legal profession should not remain engaged in any other profession. It relied on the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, which require applicants to declare that they are not engaged in any trade, business or profession.

The Court examined Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council Rules and interpreted the expression “engaged in any profession” broadly. It held that if a person continues to have the legal right to practise another profession, they are deemed to be engaged in that profession, even if they are not actively working.

Relying on Carew and Co. v Union of India, the Court observed that the right or entitlement to practise a profession itself is sufficient to attract the restriction. Since the petitioner’s name continued in the register of medical practitioners, she legally remained entitled to practise Homoeopathy.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, where restrictions on practising medicine and law simultaneously were upheld. It further noted that Section 31(2) of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 bars registered practitioners from pursuing another profession without approval from the medical council.

While explaining the reasoning behind the restriction, the Court remarked, “A professional cannot share his/her allegiance with another profession.” It further stated that divided loyalty could compromise the standards and ethics expected in both professions.

The Court concluded that unless the petitioner’s medical registration was formally cancelled, she could not truthfully declare that she was not engaged in another profession. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the Bar Council’s decision was upheld.