0
Click here to read more

The prescription has to be given only by institutionally qualified practitioners, for homeopathy medicines: Supreme Court

It goes without saying that Homeopathic medical practitioners have to follow the advisory dated 06.03.2020 issued by AYUSH Ministry, this remarkable stand was forwarded by Supreme Court three judge bench chaired by Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ashok Bhushan, Mr. R. Subhash Reddy & Mr. M.R. Shah in the Civil appeal case of Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homeo Pharmacy V. The Secretary, Ministry of Ayush & Ors. [C.A. No. 4049 of 2020],.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homeo Pharmacy aggrieved by the part of Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court dated 21.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.9459 of 2020. The appellant, who was not party in the writ petition feeling aggrieved by certain directions issued by the High Court have come up in this appeal.

The writ petition was filed by respondent No.4, an Advocate praying for writ of Mandamus or for any other writ or order directing the Secretary, Department of AYUSH, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum to ensure that the Homeopathic practitioners are immediately allowed to perform in accordance with the Exhibit-P1 notification (Guidelines dated 06.03.2020 issued by Secretary, Department of AYUSH (Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homeopathy) (AYUSH, New Delhi).

“The only prayer made in the writ petition are to the following effect:- (i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order directing the third respondent to ensure that the Homeopathic practitioners are immediately allowed to perform in accordance with the Exhibit P-1 notification. (ii) To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 21.08.2020. The High Court in its judgment has extracted advisory dated 06.03.2020 of the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH, the Government Order dated 08.04.2020 and 21.04.2020 issued by Government of Kerala and after noticing the aforesaid, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.

The appellant, who was not party to the writ petition, has filed this appeal before the Hon’ble SC stating that, “the Hon’ble High Court had not issued any notice either to Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India or to Homoeopathy doctors or its organization before passing the impugned order.”

After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the Hon’ble HC observed that, “The guidelines, however, specifically provides that “the prescription has to be given only by institutionally qualified practitioners”. The High Court in its impugned judgment has not fully comprehended the guidelines dated 06.03.2020 and taking a restricted view of the guidelines and have made observations for taking appropriate actions against the Homeopathic medical practitioners, which cannot be approved.”

The bench further added that, “The High Court, however, is right in its observation that no medical practitioner can claim that it can cure COVID-19. There is no such claim in other therapy including allopathy. The High Court is right in observing that no claim for cure can be made in Homeopathy. The Homeopathy is contemplated to be used in preventing and mitigating COVID-19 as is reflected by the advisory and guidelines issued by the Ministry of AYUSH as noticed above.”

In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present case rejected the present application stating that, “We, thus, observe that directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment need to be It goes without saying that Homeopathic medical practitioners have to follow the advisory dated 06.03.2020 issued by AYUSH Ministry as well as guidelines for Homeopathic medical practitioners for COVID-19 issued by Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH, as noted above. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. The interlocutory applications filed seeking permission for impleadment is rejected.”

Click here to read the judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat