In a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court assailing an order dated 16-02-2026 by the Chief Medical Officer, Etah (CMO) (respondent 4), whereby the petitioner’s hospital was sealed in compliance with a letter by the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P., a Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla refrained from interfering with the decision taken and dismissed the petition.
Additionally, the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities to permit him to operate his Clinic and practice modern medicine. He claimed that he obtained a Vocational Certificate Code No.802 (Community Health) in 2005 from the National Institute of Open Schooling and possessed a certificate/diploma in Electrohomeopathy, which made him eligible to practice modern scientific medicine. The petitioner was put under notice on 26-06-2019 by the CMO for submission of his degrees to which he replied on 03-07-2019, and later submitted a detailed stand. He was lastly served with a show cause notice dated 01-05-2025 for the closure of his clinic, which impelled him to file a writ petition. The petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file an exhaustive representation/objection before the CMO.
The petitioner’s representation was rejected on 16-02-2026 by the CMO, observing that the petitioner was practicing and treating patients with allopathic medicines without being registered in the office of the Chief Medical Officer as warranted by a Government Orderdated 16-09-2021. It was also remarked that no registration or operation of a clinic can be permitted for a practitioner holding a degree in Electrohomeopathy, as it is prohibited by various Government Orders.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Upholds MMDR Rules Including Royalty in Sale Value to Prevent Price Manipulation
Further, it was also stated that the clinic failed to meet the standards set by the Manak Dainik Sthapan (Registrikaran aur Viniyaman), Adhiniyam, 2010. The clinic/hospital did not have a biomedical waste management system, a fire NOC, or an infection prevention and control system, and unqualified doctors were found to be practicing modern medicine on the premises. Consequently, criminal law was set in motion, the representation was rejected, and the seal was not removed.
The Court stated that the health of the public at large is the primary responsibility of the State Government, and any quack or charlatan cannot be permitted to play with public health. Referring to Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996) 40 SCC 332, and Dr. Mukhtar Chand v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 579, the Court held that a practitioner registered under one system of medicine cannot transgress and practice another system, particularly allopathy, without the requisite qualification and registration.
The Court held that the petitioner’s certificate in electrohomeopathy could not, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be a valid degree entitling him to practice modern medicine. It was found that the petitioner’s clinic did not meet the standards and that even unqualified doctors were found to be practicing modern medicine on the premises. The Court stated that the clinic was not even registered with the office of the CMO, which was a sine qua non for practicing modern medicine and treating patients. While referring to Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. AIR 1951 SC 118, it was stated that the right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable, legitimate, and proportionate restrictions in the interest of public health.
The Court held that it could not substitute its own wisdom for that of competent expert authorities and accordingly dismissedthe petition.
