SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 2026: AHC:138560-DB:

DATE:10.07.2026

COURT: High Court of Allahabad

BENCH: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla

FACTS:

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Sharma, runs a clinic/hospital in Etah, Uttar Pradesh. He claims to practice modern (allopathic) medicine based on a Vocational Certificate Code No.802 (Community Health) obtained in 2005 from the National Institute of Open Schooling. The Chief Medical Officer, Etah, issued notices to him starting in 2019, requiring him to submit his qualifications. After a show cause notice dated 01.05.2025 for closure of the clinic, the petitioner approached the High Court in an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 08.01.2026 with directions to file a detailed representation. Pursuant to this, the petitioner submitted his representation with documents, but the Chief Medical Officer rejected it vide order dated 16.02.2026. The authority found that the petitioner was not qualified or registered to practice allopathic medicine, his clinic did not meet prescribed standards (including biomedical waste management and fire NOC), and sealed the premises. Criminal proceedings were also initiated.

ISSUES:

The primary issues before the High Court were whether the petitioner, holding only a certificate in Electrohomeopathy/Community Health, was entitled to practice modern/allopathic medicine and operate a clinic, and whether the order of the Chief Medical Officer sealing his clinic and rejecting his representation was arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and infringed his fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It upheld the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Etah, sealing the petitioner’s clinic and held that the petitioner was not entitled to practice modern (allopathic) medicine on the basis of his Electrohomeopathy certificate. The Court refused to interfere with the regulatory action taken by the authorities.

The Court held that a person can practice allopathic medicine only if he possesses a recognized medical qualification and is duly registered under the relevant statutes. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel and Dr. Mukhtar Chand v. State of Punjab, the Court ruled that a practitioner registered in one system of medicine cannot practice another system (particularly allopathy) without specific qualification and registration. The petitioner’s Vocational Certificate in Community Health/Electrohomeopathy does not entitle him to prescribe allopathic medicines or run a clinic practicing modern medicine. The Court observed that permitting unqualified persons to practice would endanger public health and amount to quackery, which the State is duty-bound to prevent. The clinic also failed to meet mandatory standards prescribed under various Government Orders regarding infrastructure, biomedical waste management, infection control, and fire safety.

The right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The regulatory framework under the Indian Medical Council Act and related Government Orders imposes legitimate restrictions to ensure only qualified persons practice medicine. The Court found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to respond through multiple notices and a prior writ petition direction. Since the petitioner failed to establish any valid qualification or compliance with statutory requirements, the sealing of the clinic was a valid and proportionate action. The High Court declined to substitute its own view for that of the expert administrative authorities.

ANALYSIS:

This judgment reinforces the strict regulatory framework governing medical practice in India and the judiciary’s role in protecting public health from unqualified practitioners. The High Court rightly emphasized that the right to practice medicine is not a fundamental right in absolute terms but is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) in the interest of public health. By relying on established Supreme Court precedents like Poonam Verma and Dr. Mukhtar Chand, the Court made it clear that cross-practice between different systems of medicine (especially practicing allopathy without proper qualification and registration) is impermissible and amounts to quackery. The decision also highlights the importance of compliance with infrastructure, safety, and waste management standards for running a clinical establishment, underscoring that administrative authorities have wide discretion in such matters to prevent harm to patients.

The ruling serves as a strong deterrent against unqualified individuals operating clinics under the guise of alternative systems of medicine. It affirms that courts should not interfere with well-reasoned orders passed by competent authorities like the Chief Medical Officer when they are based on expert regulatory requirements and after granting opportunities of hearing. This case strengthens the principle that public health and safety take precedence over individual claims to practice a profession without requisite credentials. It is likely to guide similar cases involving sealing of clinics run by persons holding certificates in Electrohomeopathy or other non-allopathic qualifications, promoting greater accountability in the healthcare sector.