Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun on Tuesday (November 4) directed that physiotherapists and occupational therapists without recognised medical qualifications must refrain from using the prefix “Dr.”. The Court was informed of an apparent inconsistency between the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 and provisions contained in the Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy. Observing that the petitioner had established a prima facie case, the Court instructed the competent authorities to ensure compliance with this restriction while the matter remains under consideration.

The petitioner, the Indian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (IAPMR), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions against the use of the prefix “Dr.” by physiotherapists and occupational therapists who do not hold recognised medical qualifications. The petitioner submitted that such use violated the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916, which reserves the title “Doctor” for persons possessing approved medical degrees.

Also Read: MV Act | Supreme Court Quashes MP High Court Order; Private Bus Operators Cannot Ply On Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes

The petition was prompted by the inclusion of the “Dr.” prefix in the Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, approved as syllabi for 2025. It was argued that the provisions in these documents were inconsistent with the 1916 Act. The petitioner relied on an earlier directive (Exhibit P4) issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which ordered the removal of the prefix “Dr.” from the physiotherapy syllabus, stating that its use by non-medical professionals would contravene statutory provisions.

The petitioner further pointed out that although the Ministry later withdrew this directive (Exhibit P5), the underlying issue of legal compliance remained unresolved. The case involved the Union of India, the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, the State Allied and Health Care Council, and the National Medical Commission as respondents.

Justice V.G. Arun observed that “there is an apparent conflict between the provisions of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 and the clauses in the Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy produced as Exts.P1 and P1(a) respectively.” The Court noted that the Competency Based Curricula for these professions included provisions allowing the use of the prefix “Dr.”, which appeared inconsistent with the statutory restrictions set forth in the 1916 Act.

It was further recorded that “by Ext.P4 order, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare had directed to forthwith remove the usage of the prefix ‘Dr.’ for Physiotherapists in the Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy – Approved Syllabus, 2025 on the premise that any Physiotherapist using the title ‘Doctor’ without holding a recognised medical qualification would be violating the provisions of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916.”

The Court also noted that “although Ext.P4 was later withdrawn as per Ext.P5,” the petitioner had established “a prima facie case.” It observed that the conflicting provisions between the statutory law and the curriculum warranted judicial consideration to ensure that the statutory restrictions were upheld until the matter could be finally decided.

After hearing counsel for all parties, the Court found it necessary to prevent potential statutory violations and preserve the intent of the 1916 Act. It therefore determined that an interim order was justified in view of the apparent conflict between the curriculum and the Act.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Sets Aside DRT Order In Union Bank OTS Dispute; Orders Reconsideration Of Borrowers’ Stay Plea And Defers Recovery Proceedings

The Court directed: “Hence, there shall be a direction to the competent authorities to ensure that the prefix ‘Dr.’ mentioned in Exts.P1 and P1(a) is not used by Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists without recognised medical qualification.”

“Admit. Sri. Mahadev M.J, the learned CGC takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Sri. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 4th respondent. Issue notice to the 3rd respondent through speed post. Post on 01.12.2025.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: M/s. V.V. Asokan (Sr.), S. Parvathi, T.K. Sreekala, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan & K.G. Anil.

For the Respondents: Sri. Mahadev M.J., Central Government Counsel; Sri. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, Standing Counsel.

Case Title: Indian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: WP(C) No.41064/2025
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun