Satheesan A v. State of Kerala and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V.G. Arun
- Judgment Date
- 2022-11-15
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to inquire into whether respondents 8 and 9 are practicing traditional medicine and prescribing medicines. If found to be so, the third respondent shall inform respondents 4–6, who shall take steps to close down the centres. The enquiry must afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents 8 and 9.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of; enquiry ordered with a hearing, and possible closure of the centres if found to be practicing without qualification and registration.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Satheesan A
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Ayush Department
- The Director Ayush Department, Indian Systems of Medicine
- The District Medical Officer Ayush Department, Indian Systems of Medicine
- The City Police Commissioner Kollam City
- The Deputy Superintendent of Police Special Branch, CID
- The Station House Officer Eravipuram Police Station
- The Kollam Corporation Buildings, Kollam
- Udayabhanu s/o Krishnan
- Vijayakan s/o Vijayan
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • B. Mohanlal
Counsels for Respondents
- • M.K. Chandra Mohan Das
- • MPT M. Kiranlal
- • Manu Ramachandran
- • R. Rajesh (Varkala)
- • T.S. Sarath
- • Sameer M Nair
- • V.M. Vishnu Mohan
- • Geethu Krishnan
- • Harsha
- • Susan Sam
- • S. Sreekumar
Case Synopsis & Summary
Satheesan A, a resident of Mulluvila, Kollam and president of the NAVAJEEVAN Library & Sports Club, filed this writ petition challenging the operation of an Ayurveda centre run by respondents 8 and 9 without the prescribed qualification or registration under the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners’ Act. The petitioner contends that the centre is engaged in the practice of Unani or Ayurveda, but the practitioners lack recognized qualification and registration; he relies on the Supreme Court decision in Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala and others (2018) 6 SCC 648 to argue that the right of traditional practitioners to practice has been negatived. He further asserts that beyond registering a crime, authorities have not taken positive steps to close down the centre, nor prevented them from prescribing medicines to patients. The 8th respondent contends that the centre is under the supervision of registered medical practitioners and that the petitioner’s role amounts to guiding qualified doctors. The Government Pleader cites the cited Supreme Court decision to contend that no person can practice any system of medicine without prescribed qualification and registration. After examining the decision, the court holds that no person can practice medicine without the requisite qualification and registration. It directs the District Medical Officer to inquire into whether respondents 8 and 9 are practicing traditional medicine and prescribing medicines, and to take steps to close the centres if found so, with hearing afforded to the petitioner and respondents 8 and 9.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- No person can practice any system of medicine without prescribed qualification and registration.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that respondents 8 and 9 are running an Ayurveda centre without the required professional degree or registration under the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners’ Act. He relies on the Supreme Court’s Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum decision to argue that the right of paramparya vaidyas to practise traditional medicine is negated. He complains that no positive action beyond registering a crime has been taken to stop the centre from prescribing medicines. Respondents argue that the 8th respondent’s centre is supervised by registered medical practitioners and that the petitioner’s role is merely advisory; the centre’s operations are under supervision and not unauthorized, and the petitioner’s allegations require examination.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the centre is supervised by qualified doctors and that the petitioner’s challenge is unsubstantiated; they emphasize adherence to the Supreme Court decision on qualification and registration and claim that there is no unauthorised practice if supervision exists and professionals are involved.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala and others | 2018 SCC 648 | Positive | The Supreme Court decision is cited as holding that no person can practice any system of medicine without prescribed qualification and registration, a proposition relied upon by the Kerala High Court to direct enquiry and potential closure of the centres. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Satheesan A v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.