Kerala High Court ruled that doctors must cancel medical registration before enrolling as advocates.
The case involved a homeopathic doctor seeking enrolment with the Bar Council of Kerala.
The Court said remaining on the medical register preserves the legal right to practise medicine.
Rule 2(h) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules bars simultaneous professional engagement during advocate enrolment.
The judgment relied on the Supreme Court’s 1996 ruling in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a registered medical practitioner cannot enrol as an advocate unless the person cancels their medical registration. The judgment came in a case involving a homeopathic practitioner whose application for enrolment as a lawyer was rejected by the Bar Council of Kerala.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the ruling in TM Manju v Bar Council of Kerala & Ors on May 18, 2026. The Court upheld the Bar Council of Kerala’s decision to deny enrolment because the petitioner’s name continued to remain in the register of medical practitioners under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021.
According to the judgment, the petitioner, T.M. Manju, had been practising as a homeopathic doctor before deciding to pursue law. Under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, homeopathy practitioners are recognized as registered medical practitioners and are governed by statutory licensing and registration requirements similar to other recognized systems of medicine in the state. After cancelling the municipal licence issued for operating her clinic, she completed a three year unitary LL.B course between 2022 and 2025. She later cleared the All India Bar Examination and applied for enrolment before the Bar Council of Kerala on November 17, 2025.
During document verification, the Bar Council found that she had not uploaded a certificate showing cancellation of her registration as a homeopathic practitioner. The Council informed her through email to produce the document. In response, the petitioner submitted an affidavit stating that she had already cancelled her clinic licence and had not practised homeopathy since then. She also undertook that she would not engage in medical practice after enrolment as an advocate and would suspend her enrolment if she returned to medicine in the future.
The petitioner later alleged that despite submitting the undertaking required under Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, her name was absent from the January 2026 enrolment list. Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979 requires applicants seeking enrolment as advocates to declare that they are not engaged in any trade, business, or profession, except certain approved teaching roles in law. She subsequently approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the enrolment committee proceedings and requested a declaration that she should be deemed enrolled as an advocate from January 2026 onward. She also sought compensation for denial of enrolment.
Before the Court, the petitioner argued that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not require cancellation of medical registration before enrolment as an advocate. Her counsel contended that restrictions relating to simultaneous professions would apply only after enrolment and not during the admission stage. She also argued that denial of enrolment violated her fundamental right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The Bar Council of Kerala argued that cancellation of a clinic licence alone was insufficient because the petitioner continued to remain a registered medical practitioner under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. The Bar Council also argued before the Court that cancelling medical registration would not permanently prevent the petitioner from returning to medicine, since re-registration under medical law remained possible.
The Council stated that Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules requires every applicant to declare that they are not engaged in any trade, business, or profession at the time of enrolment.
The Court examined provisions of both the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. The judgment noted that Section 31(2) of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act bars a registered medical practitioner from following another profession without sanction from the concerned medical council while their name remains on the medical register. The judgment also referred to Section 36 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, which restricts medical practice to individuals registered under the Act.
Justice Thomas observed that inclusion in the register of medical practitioners legally entitled the petitioner to practise homeopathy, regardless of whether she was actively running a clinic. The Court emphasized that remaining on the medical register legally preserves a person’s right to practise medicine, even if they are not actively treating patients or operating a clinic. The Court held that merely cancelling a municipal licence did not remove her right to practise medicine because her name remained in the official register. The Court also held that the petitioner’s undertaking not to practise medicine was insufficient because her continued presence on the medical register legally preserved her entitlement to practise medicine.
The Court further stated that the legal profession requires full time commitment and professionals cannot divide loyalty between two professions. In the judgment, the Court observed:
“A professional cannot share his/her allegiance with another profession. Such sharing of loyalty can lead to compromising of values of each profession and even result in having to serve two ‘masters’ at the same time.”
The Court also referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa [(1996) 3 SCC 342], which held that advocates cannot simultaneously practise another profession, particularly medicine, because legal practice requires full time attention. The Supreme Court had observed that simultaneous practice of law and medicine could divide professional responsibilities and affect service to both clients and patients.
The Kerala High Court judgment also reflects concerns seen in other countries regarding conflicts of interest and divided professional responsibilities when individuals attempt to practise both medicine and law simultaneously.
In the United States, there is no nationwide law prohibiting a person from holding both medical and legal qualifications. Physician-lawyers often work in areas such as medical malpractice litigation, bioethics, healthcare regulation, and hospital administration. However, American legal ethics rules emphasize that outside professional activities should not interfere with a lawyer’s independent judgment and responsibilities toward clients.
In the United Kingdom, doctors must remain registered and licensed under the General Medical Council to practise medicine. The legal and medical professions are regulated separately, and there is no explicit prohibition against holding qualifications in both fields. However, continued medical practice requires compliance with professional licensing and regulatory standards.
Healthcare policy research from Europe has also examined concerns surrounding “dual practice,” particularly doctors working simultaneously in public and private healthcare systems. Studies have highlighted issues such as divided professional attention, conflicts of interest, and reduced commitment to one role, concerns that are similar to the observations made by the Kerala High Court in the present case. The ruling reflects a broader regulatory concern seen internationally, where professional bodies seek to avoid conflicts arising from divided obligations between different professions.
The Court held that the Bar Council has the authority to assess eligibility at the entry stage itself and does not need to wait until a person begins practising law before addressing conflicts involving another profession. The Kerala High Court ultimately concluded that a registered medical practitioner of homeopathy can be denied permission to enrol as an advocate unless the registration as a homeopath is cancelled. The writ petition and the petitioner’s claim for damages were dismissed.
Senior Advocate O.V. Radhakrishnan appeared for the petitioner along with advocates H. Vishnudas and George Varghese. Senior Counsel K. Jaju Babu appeared for the Bar Council of Kerala along with advocates M.U. Vijayalakshmi and Manikandan S. Kandathil.
Kerala High Court. T.M. Manju v. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 6893 of 2026, decided May 18, 2026. High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. PDF judgment accessed via 24Law.
American Medical Association Journal of Ethics. “One Model of Collaborative Learning for Medical and Law Students at the University of Baltimore and Johns Hopkins.” AMA Journal of Ethics 18, no. 3 (2016). https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/one-model-collaborative-learning-medical-and-law-students-university-baltimore-and-johns-hopkins/2016-03.
General Medical Council (UK). “Licence to Practise: Information for Doctors on the Register.” General Medical Council. Accessed May 20, 2026. https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/managing-your-registration/information-for-doctors-on-the-register/licensing.
Garattini, Livio, and Anna Padula. “Dual Practice of Hospital Staff Doctors: Hippocratic or Hypocritic?” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2018). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6100152/.
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board. “The Rules of Professional Conduct.” Accessed May 20, 2026. https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct.