"‘Quacks Endangering Innocent Lives’: Karnataka High Court Orders Crackdown, Tells State to Identify and Act Against Clinics Hoodwinking the Public"
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a writ petition filed by an individual seeking registration of his clinic under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. The Court directed the State Government to take appropriate action against clinics operated by individuals not qualified in any recognized stream of medicine. It further ordered the Secretary of Health and Family Welfare to submit an action taken report to the Registry. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to practice medicine or receive statutory registration.
The petitioner, a resident of Modur, Bookanakere Hobli in Mandya District, submitted an application dated 25 March 2024 seeking registration of his clinic, Sri Lakshmi Clinic, under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. The application was made to the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, with a request for consideration by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Registration Committee.
The petitioner claimed that he was practicing alternative medicine and possessed a certificate issued on 9 January 2001 by the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, allegedly registered under the Government of West Bengal Act XXVI of 1961 and Central Government Act XXI of 1860. He further stated that he had obtained a Diploma in Community Medical Services and had been running the clinic for several years.
In his petition, the petitioner sought directions to register his clinic without seeking clarifications from the District AYUSH Officer and to prevent any interference in his continued practice of alternative medicine.
In support of his case, the petitioner relied on previous orders of co-ordinate benches of the High Court, which had directed the authorities to consider similar applications without interrupting the operations of such clinics until a final decision was made.
The State, represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was not qualified under any recognized stream of medicine and therefore not entitled to registration under the Act. It was submitted that the petitioner’s only educational qualification was SSLC (Secondary School Leaving Certificate), and no valid degree or diploma from a recognized institution had been produced.
The petitioner submitted his application on the State's digital portal, providing general information about the establishment and attaching a staff list indicating himself as the proprietor, administrator, and full-time doctor. No other staff members were listed. Despite repeated directions from the Court, the petitioner failed to produce any valid educational certificate or proof of medical qualification.
Upon examination of the documents and submissions, it was found that the petitioner had styled himself as "Dr. A.A. Muralidharswamy" without possessing any recognized qualification in allopathy, ayurveda, unani, or any other stream of medicine acknowledged by the State or Central Government regulatory bodies.
“The issue in the lis is whether the petitioner, who is admittedly qualified with SSLC can call himself ‘Dr. A.A. Muralidharswamy’ and practice medicine of any stream.”
The Court noted that the petitioner’s application listed no qualified staff other than himself and that he described himself in multiple roles within the clinic. “The petitioner is running a one-man clinic.”
The Court scrutinized the petitioner’s educational claims. “The petitioner claims to have a certificate from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines... the certificate does not inspire any confidence, as there is no qualification indicated in the certificate.”
The Bench recorded: “On a pointed query, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is candid in accepting that the petitioner is only an SSLC and has not secured qualification in any stream, either Ayurveda, Allopathy or Unani.”
Expressing serious concern, the Court stated: “It is these quacks, who project themselves to be Doctors are endangering the life of innocent rural people... such instances have grown exponentially, which has resulted in mushrooming of such clinics all over, opened by the persons projecting themselves to be Doctors.”
On the State’s role, the Court remarked: “It is un-understandable as to how the State is in blissful ignorance towards proliferation of such clinics without initiating any action.”
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s reliance on previous decisions but distinguished them, noting that those judgments involved procedural aspects and did not validate unqualified practice. “The petitioner, being an SSLC, cannot call himself a Doctor, much less, practicing as a Doctor.”
For the aforesaid reasons “Writ petition is dismissed.”
It further directed:
“The Registry is directed to transmit this order to the Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare for appropriate action on those clinics, which are being run by persons, who are not qualified in any stream of medicine. The action taken report be filed before the Registry in this Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Naik N. R., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Shamanth Naik, High Court Government Pleader
Case Title: Dr. A.A. Muralidharswamy v. State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:10787
Case Number: WP No. 33364 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
