Recently, the Kerala High Court held that a registered Homoeopathic practitioner cannot enrol as an advocate unless her registration as a medical practitioner is first cancelled. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas emphasised the incompatibility of simultaneous professional allegiance, observing that “splitting the professional soul between two masters can lead to losing focus in both professions.”
Brief facts:
The case arose after the Petitioner, a registered Homoeopathic practitioner, pursued a three-year Unitary LL.B course between 2022 and 2025 after cancelling the municipal licence issued for running her clinic. Following the completion of her law degree and clearing the All India Bar Examination, she applied for enrolment before the Bar Council of Kerala in November, 2025. During document verification, the Bar Council pointed out that she had not produced a cancellation certificate showing the removal of her registration as a Homoeopathic doctor.
Though the petitioner submitted affidavits and undertakings stating that she had stopped medical practice and would not simultaneously engage in medicine after enrolment as an advocate, her name continued in the register of medical practitioners maintained under the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. When her name did not appear in the January 2026 enrolment list, she approached the High Court, challenging the enrolment committee’s decision and seeking directions to treat her as deemed enrolled on the State rolls.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, does not require cancellation of medical registration before enrolment as an advocate and that restrictions on simultaneous practice arise only after enrolment. The Counsel further contended that denying enrolment solely because the Petitioner’s name remained in the medical register violated her right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Opposing the plea, the Senior Counsel for the Bar Council of Kerala argued that the Bar Council must ensure that an applicant is not engaged in another profession. Reliance was placed on Rule 2(h) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979 and Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 to contend that continued registration as a medical practitioner itself reflected an entitlement to practise medicine and justified refusal of enrolment.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that “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. Splitting the professional soul between two masters can lead to losing focus in both professions. Such divided loyalty cannot be countenanced in the profession of law as the said profession has often been stated to be a jealous mistress.”
The Court observed that enrolment as an advocate is not an automatic consequence of obtaining a law degree and clearing the All India Bar Examination. Interpreting Section 24 of the Advocates Act along with Rule 2(h) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, the Bench held that the Bar Council is entitled to examine, even at the threshold stage, whether an applicant continues to be engaged in another profession. The Court further clarified that the expression “engaged in any profession” includes not only actual practice but also the legal right or entitlement to continue such profession. Since the Petitioner’s name continued in the register of medical practitioners, the Court held that she retained a statutory right to practise Homoeopathy and therefore could not claim to be free from engagement in another profession.
The Court held that mere closure of the Petitioner’s clinic or an undertaking not to practise medicine was insufficient to satisfy the statutory conditions governing enrolment as an advocate. The Bench observed that continued inclusion in the register of medical practitioners creates a legal presumption that the person remains entitled to practise medicine as of right. Emphasising that the legal profession demands undivided professional allegiance, the Court stated that a person cannot simultaneously retain competing professional loyalties while seeking entry into the Bar. It was further observed that the Bar Council’s authority to identify unsuitable candidates extends even to the pre-enrolment stage, where materials disclose continued entitlement to pursue another regulated profession.
The Court emphasised that the legal profession is a full-time calling requiring complete dedication, undivided attention, and unwavering professional commitment. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, the Bench observed that simultaneous pursuit of medicine and law would inevitably result in conflicting duties and divided loyalties. The Court noted that even though both professions are noble, a person cannot be permitted to retain another professional identity while seeking entry into the legal profession. It further held that the restriction imposed by the Bar Council constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution and cannot be treated as arbitrary merely because it limits simultaneous engagement in another profession.
The Court ultimately held that mere closure of a clinic or cessation of actual practice is insufficient if the statutory entitlement to practise medicine continues, thereby reaffirming the principle that entry into the legal profession can be restricted where an applicant retains the legal right to simultaneously pursue another regulated profession.
The decision of the Court:
The Court upheld the Bar Council’s decision requiring cancellation of the petitioner’s medical registration before enrolment as an advocate and dismissed the writ petition along with the claim for compensation.
Case Title: T.M. Manju Gowreesankaram Vs. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 6893 of 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr.Adv. O.V.Radhakrishnan, Adv. H.Vishnudas, Adv. George Varghese
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. K.Jaju Babu, Adv. M.U.Vijayalakshmi, Adv. Manikantan S.Kandathil
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
