Karnataka High Court Outlaws Quackery: Only Statutorily-Recognised Medical Qualifications Entitle Use of “Doctor” and Registration under the KPME Act

1. Introduction

The writ petition in Dr. A.A. Muralidharswamy v. State of Karnataka (WP No. 33364/2024, decided on 17 March 2025) presented the Karnataka High Court with a recurring but under-policed problem: individuals styling themselves “Doctor”, armed with dubious “alternative medicine” certificates, and seeking the regulatory legitimacy that flows from registration under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (“KPME Act”).

The petitioner, possessing only a Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) and an unrecognised “Indian Board of Alternative Medicines” certificate, asked the Court to compel the district authorities to register his one-man clinic and restrain interference with his alleged alternative-medicine practice.

Against the backdrop of mushrooming “quack clinics” in rural Karnataka, the Court was required to decide:

Whether an SSLC-qualified person, holding no degree recognised by any statutory medical council, can describe himself as “Doctor” and claim registration under the KPME Act.
Whether earlier coordinate-bench orders directing mere “consideration” of applications by such practitioners created any right to registration.
What positive duty, if any, rests on the State to curb unqualified practice.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition outright, holding that:

The petitioner, with nothing beyond an SSLC and an unverified alternative-medicine certificate, is a quack and cannot legitimately use the honorific “Dr.” or practise any system of medicine.
Section 3 of the KPME Act and Rule 5 of the 2009 Rules presuppose statutorily recognised medical qualifications; lacking such, the petitioner’s clinic is ineligible for registration.
Earlier coordinate-bench orders do not confer substantive rights; they merely required authorities to consider applications after following due process—none held that quacks must be registered.
The State’s “blissful ignorance” towards widespread unqualified practice is unacceptable; the Court directed immediate statewide action to identify and shut down clinics run by unqualified individuals, calling for an action-taken report.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Distinguished

The petitioner relied on three earlier single-judge decisions:

WP 435/2015 (decided 13-04-2015)
WP 28910/2015 & 25188/2015 (31-01-2017)
WP 62158/2016 (31-01-2017)

All those cases merely remitted applications for fresh consideration after observing violations of natural justice; none granted registration as of right, nor validated the petitioners’ qualifications. Justice Nagaprasanna emphasised that procedural directions cannot override substantive statutory eligibility. The Court thereby limited the persuasive value of such orders to their facts, preventing a flood of similar claims by unqualified persons.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Statutory Scheme.
Section 3 of the KPME Act forbids any private medical establishment from operating without registration “in accordance with the terms and conditions” prescribed. Rule 5 enumerates conditions including qualified staff and display of state medical-council registration certificates. Implicitly, only practitioners recognised by the Medical Council of India/NMC, State Medical Councils, CCIM (Ayurveda), CCH (Homeopathy), etc. can satisfy these requirements.
Absence of Recognised Qualification.
Faced with repeated adjournments, the petitioner conceded that he held no medical degree at all. The alleged “Indian Board of Alternative Medicines” certificate is not recognised by any statute or regulatory body. Therefore, the threshold requirement of eligibility for registration fails.
Public Interest and the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.
The Court invoked its constitutional duty to protect public health, noting the “exponential” growth of quack clinics endangering “innocent rural people.” Courts cannot be party to perpetuating illegality under the guise of alternative medicine or procedural fairness.
State Accountability.
Directing the judgment to be forwarded to the Health Secretary, the Court imposed a continuing obligation on the State to monitor and report action against unqualified practitioners, signalling judicial intolerance for bureaucratic inertia.

3.3 Potential Impact

Immediate Crack-Down: District health authorities now have explicit judicial backing to close unregistered clinics run by unqualified persons, without fear of stay orders based on past procedural rulings.
Registration Scrutiny: KPME registration committees across Karnataka must verify statutory qualifications before granting or renewing licences.
Litigation Filter: Future writ petitions by self-styled practitioners lacking recognised degrees are likely to be dismissed summarily, reducing docket congestion.
Policy Momentum: The judgment may galvanise legislative or executive moves—e.g., a digital registry cross-verifying KPME establishments with medical-council rolls.
Deterrence Beyond Karnataka: Although a single-state decision, its reasoning can be persuasive in other High Courts confronting similar quackery issues.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Quack: An individual practising medicine without statutory qualification or registration.
Writ of Mandamus: A court order compelling a public authority to perform a statutory duty. Here, the petitioner sought mandamus to force the Deputy Commissioner to register his clinic.
Coordinate Bench: Another bench of equal strength (single judge) within the same High Court. Its decisions are persuasive but not binding if distinguishable.
Natural Justice: Fair-hearing principles (“audi alteram partem”). Earlier cases were remitted for non-adherence—but substantive illegality trumps procedural lapses.
SSLC: Secondary School Leaving Certificate, equivalent to Class 10 education—clearly insufficient for medical practice.
Parens Patriae Jurisdiction: The State’s (and by extension the Court’s) responsibility to protect the welfare of citizens, especially when they are vulnerable to harm.

5. Conclusion

Dr. A.A. Muralidharswamy v. State of Karnataka establishes a forceful precedent against quackery in Karnataka. The High Court’s core holding—only those possessing qualifications recognised by statutory medical councils may style themselves “Doctor” and secure KPME registration—closes the loophole exploited by self-proclaimed alternative-medicine practitioners armed with unrecognised certificates.

By directing statewide enforcement and an action-taken report, the Court shifts the paradigm from passive tolerance to proactive regulation, safeguarding public health and restoring integrity to the medical profession. The judgment thus stands as a cornerstone in the fight against unqualified medical practice and a clarion call for robust administrative vigilance.