A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homoeo Pharmacy v. The Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH & Ors. examined the permissible scope of practice of Homeopathic practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic and the extent to which courts may issue regulatory directions beyond the pleadings. The appeal arose from a Kerala High Court judgment that, while disposing of a writ seeking implementation of the Ministry of AYUSH advisory dated 06.03.2020, issued wide directions cautioning AYUSH practitioners against advertising or prescribing medicines claiming a cure for COVID-19 and authorised monitoring and action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The appellant, though not a party before the High Court, challenged these directions as excessive, prejudicial, and unsupported by the advisory framework. The Supreme Court analysed the AYUSH advisory and subsequent Homeopathy guidelines and clarified that Homeopathy was envisaged as a preventive, prophylactic, symptomatic, and add-on therapeutic aid, subject to strict limitations against claiming a cure.

The Court also reaffirmed that statutory ethical regulations already prohibit advertisement by Homeopathic practitioners, rendering additional judicial directions unnecessary. The judgment balances public health imperatives, statutory regulation of medical ethics, and judicial restraint, while correcting an over-expansive approach adopted by the High Court.

Keywords: COVID-19, AYUSH Advisory, Homeopathy, Disaster Management Act, Medical Ethics, Judicial Overreach

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case emerged in the extraordinary context of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the State and Union governments sought to deploy all available healthcare systems to mitigate the public health crisis. The Ministry of AYUSH issued an advisory on 06.03.2020 recognising the potential role of traditional systems, including Homeopathy, in prevention, prophylaxis, and symptom management. This advisory was part of a broader national response aimed at augmenting conventional medical infrastructure.

A writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by an advocate seeking directions to the State and the Department of AYUSH to implement the advisory. The grievance was limited to alleged inaction by State authorities in allowing Homeopathic practitioners to operate in accordance with the advisory framework. While disposing of the writ, the High Court acknowledged that immunity-boosting medicines were being distributed but went further to caution AYUSH practitioners against prescribing medicines claiming a cure for COVID-19 and empowered authorities to initiate action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The appellant institution, representing Homeopathic interests, was not heard in the writ proceedings but felt aggrieved by the sweeping directions, particularly those exposing practitioners to punitive action. The appeal thus raised questions about procedural fairness, interpretation of executive advisories, statutory regulation of professional conduct, and the permissible limits of judicial intervention in public health administration.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The writ petition before the Kerala High Court was filed by a private advocate claiming to be an admirer of the Homeopathic system. The petitioner relied upon the AYUSH advisory dated 06.03.2020, which suggested that AYUSH interventions had historically contributed to public health responses in epidemic situations. The petitioner contended that the State of Kerala failed to implement the advisory, unlike other States, and argued that earlier distribution of Homeopathic medicines could have prevented the escalation of COVID-19 cases.

The relief sought was narrow and specific. The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to permit Homeopathic practitioners to act in accordance with the advisory. No challenge was raised against statutory regulations, nor was any relief sought authorising practitioners to claim a cure.

The High Court, after examining State government orders and the advisory, disposed of the writ. However, in paragraph 14 of its judgment, it issued additional directions warning that any advertisement or prescription claiming a cure for COVID-19 would attract action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and directed medical and police authorities to monitor AYUSH practitioners.

The appellant, Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homoeo Pharmacy, was not a party to the writ but asserted that the directions adversely affected Homeopathic practitioners nationwide. The appellant argued that the High Court travelled beyond pleadings, misconstrued the advisory, and imposed punitive threats without hearing affected stakeholders.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court could issue directions beyond the scope of pleadings in a writ seeking limited implementation of an executive advisory?
ii. Whether Homeopathic practitioners are legally confined only to prescribing immunity boosters under the AYUSH advisory dated 06.03.2020?
iii. Whether judicial directions authorising action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 were warranted in light of existing statutory ethical regulations?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions not prayed for. The advisory explicitly permitted Homeopathy as preventive, prophylactic, symptom-management, and add-on intervention, and the High Court erred in limiting practitioners only to immunity boosters. It was argued that the threat of action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 created fear and uncertainty among practitioners. The appellant emphasised that subsequent AYUSH guidelines dated 04.04.2020 allowed Homeopathic medicines as therapeutic aids, subject to institutional qualification and official permission.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent, represented by the Solicitor General of India, submitted that the advisory framework was comprehensive and balanced. It was contended that while Homeopathy was recognised as an adjunct system, no practitioner could claim a cure for COVID-19. The respondent supported the High Court’s cautionary approach but clarified that the Ministry had permitted Homeopathic prescriptions as add-on treatment and for symptom management, provided ethical and regulatory boundaries were respected.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 24 and Section 33 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973
ii. Regulation 6 of the Homeopathic Practitioners (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1982
iii. Disaster Management Act, 2005

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying paragraph 14 of the High Court judgment. The Court undertook a detailed examination of the AYUSH advisory dated 06.03.2020 and subsequent Homeopathy guidelines. It held that the advisory clearly envisaged three permissible uses of Homeopathy: preventive and prophylactic, symptom management, and add-on intervention to conventional care.

The Court found that the High Court failed to fully comprehend this framework and wrongly restricted Homeopathic practice to immunity boosters alone. It observed that subsequent guidelines issued by the Ministry elaborated Homeopathy’s role as a therapeutic aid, albeit without any claim of cure.

On the issue of advertisement, the Supreme Court relied on Regulation 6 of the 1982 Regulations, which already prohibits solicitation and advertisement by Homeopathic practitioners. Given this statutory prohibition, the Court held that additional judicial warnings were unnecessary.

However, the Court affirmed the High Court’s core observation that no medical practitioner, irrespective of system, could claim to cure COVID-19. It clarified that the phrase “Homeopathy does not cure the disease, but it cures the patients” must be understood within ethical and regulatory limits. The impugned directions authorising punitive action were thus modified, and practitioners were directed strictly to follow the advisory and guidelines.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The binding principle emerging from the judgment is that courts must not issue regulatory directions beyond the scope of pleadings when the field is already governed by statutory provisions and executive guidelines. The Supreme Court held that Homeopathic practitioners are legally permitted to engage in preventive, symptomatic, and add-on therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 as per AYUSH advisories, but are strictly barred from claiming a cure or advertising such claims.

The Court emphasised that ethical regulation under the 1982 Regulations sufficiently governs professional conduct, and judicial overreach into this domain risks upsetting the regulatory balance.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court’s observation that “the scientists of the entire world are engaged in research to find a proper medicine or vaccine” reflects judicial recognition of scientific uncertainty during the pandemic. This remark, while not determinative, underscores the need for caution against absolutist claims by any medical system.

c) GUIDELINES 

The Court reiterated adherence to existing guidelines rather than framing new ones. It emphasised that:
i. Homeopathic practitioners must strictly follow AYUSH advisories and guidelines.
ii. Prescriptions must be made only by institutionally qualified practitioners.
iii. Medicines may be used only for prophylaxis, mitigation, and add-on therapy, not as a claimed cure.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces judicial discipline in public health governance. It protects Homeopathic practitioners from arbitrary punitive exposure while reaffirming ethical limits on medical claims. The decision respects executive expertise and statutory regulation, ensuring that traditional medicine systems contribute responsibly to public health without misleading claims.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i. Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homoeo Pharmacy v. The Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH & Ors., [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1074

b) Important Statutes Referred
i. Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973
ii. Homeopathic Practitioners (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1982
iii. Disaster Management Act, 2005