‘Doctor’ Title Not Exclusive To Medical Professionals; Kerala High Court Permits Physiotherapists And Occupational Therapists To Use ‘Dr.’ Prefix
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun has dismissed challenges by medical associations and a rehabilitation professionals’ body, along with an office-bearer, to the use of the “Dr.” prefix by physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The Court held that the title “doctor” is not exclusively associated with modern medical practitioners and that these allied health professionals may use “Dr.” in the manner contemplated under the competency-based curricula. In reaching this conclusion, the Bench noted that the principal medical statute does not confer a statutory monopoly over the prefix and, consequently, an exclusive claim could not be sustained.
The proceedings arose from a batch of writ petitions instituted by associations and individual practitioners of modern scientific medicine, challenging the statutory framework governing allied and healthcare professions. The petitioners questioned the provisions of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 and the competency-based curriculum framed for physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Their grievance was that the impugned statutory provisions and curriculum allegedly conflicted with the regulatory regime governing modern medicine under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
The petitioners asserted that physiotherapists and occupational therapists were granted powers enabling them to function as first-contact healthcare providers, which, according to them, amounted to unauthorised practice of modern medicine. They further objected to the curriculum permitting the use of the prefix “Dr” with professional suffixes, contending that such usage misled the public and encroached upon the domain of registered medical practitioners.
The respondents, including the Union of India, statutory commissions, and professional bodies of allied health professionals, opposed the petitions. They relied on the legislative intent behind the enactment of the NCAHP Act, the statutory definitions contained therein, and the overriding effect conferred upon the Act. The dispute thus centered on the scope of practice of allied healthcare professionals, the validity of the curriculum framed under the Act, and the permissibility of the use of the prefix “Dr.”
The Court recorded that “the petitioners are qualified medical professionals in the field of modern scientific medicine and are aggrieved by the powers and status given to Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Profession Act, 2021.” It noted the contention that the impugned provisions “run counter to the provisions of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.”
While examining the statutory scheme, the Court observed that “going by the definition itself, a healthcare professional is entitled to provide preventive, curative, rehabilitative, therapeutic and promotional health services.” It further stated that “there is no direct challenge to the said provision and the prayer is only to read down certain provisions, that too, of the Schedule to the Act and the Competency Based Curriculum.”
On the scope of judicial review, the Court recorded that “the prayer seeking the reading down of the provisions of an enactment passed by the Parliament will normally not be entertained.” It added that “this Court is unable to find any compelling reason to read down the provisions of the NCAHP Act, so as to confine the scope of discharge of professional services by Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists as a supporting group for the qualified medical professionals.”
Regarding the nature of services, the Court observed that “even though healthcare professionals can provide preventive, curative, rehabilitative, therapeutic and promotional health services, they cannot prescribe medicines or provide allopathic treatment.” It further noted that “the services provided by a healthcare professional and a medical professional are distinct.”
On the use of the prefix “Dr”, the Court stated that "The challenge against the use of prefix 'Dr' by Physiotherapists will not also hold good since the NMC or the allied statutes does not provide for the use of the prefix 'Dr' by qualified medical professionals...Therefore the contention that the title 'Doctor' exclusively belongs to medical professionals is a misconception since even now, like in the olden times, persons with higher educational qualifications like PhD are entitled to use the title 'Doctor'."
The Court also declined to accept the petitioners’ argument that the reference to “title” in Section 40 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act confers an exclusive statutory right on them to use the “Dr.” prefix. "the NMC Act does not contain any provision for conferring the title Doctor on qualified medical professionals. The expression title used in Section 40 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act cannot therefore be understood as statutorily entitling the qualified medical professionals to prefix 'Dr' to their names. In the absence of such provision, the petitioners cannot claim exclusive right to use the prefix 'Dr'," the Court observed.
The Court concluded that “this Court is unable to find any compelling reason to read down the provisions of the NCAHP Act. The challenge against the use of prefix ‘Dr’ by Physiotherapists will not also hold good. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocates K.I. Mayankutty Mather, V.V. Asokan, along with Advocates S. Parvathi, T.K. Sreekala, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan, and K.G. Anil.
For the Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina, Central Government Counsel Mahadev M.J., Standing Counsel K.S. Prenjith Kumar, Senior Advocates S. Sreekumar, George Poonthottam, P.B. Krishnan, and other appearing counsel as recorded.
Case Title: Indian Medical Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:6168
Case Numbers: W.P.(C). Nos. 41064, 43237 and 43518 of 2025
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun
