This is what Supreme Court held about Paramparya Vaidyas of Kerala [Read judgment]

The Supreme Court today held that persons not registered under Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 cannot practice in medicine as Paramparya Vaidyas..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices RK Agrawal and Mohan M Shantanagoudar which was hearing an appeal against a verdict of the Kerala High Court..Pursuant to the enactment of Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 (Act), Paramparya Vaidyas, who are persons practicing in Sidha/ Unani/ Ayurveda system of medicine were debarred from practicing in modern/ homeopathic/ ayurvedic/ siddha/ unani-tibba medicines unless registered under the Act..This was challenged in High Court of Kerala by Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum. The High Court dismissed the case, leading to the appeal in Supreme Court..It was the contention of the appellant before the Supreme Court that in the State of Kerala, a large number of persons are practicing in Sidha/Unani/Ayurveda system of medicines known as ‘Paramparya Vaidyas’, which are in vogue for a long time. After the enactment of the Act, Section 38 empowered the State Government to regulate the qualifications and to provide for the registration of practitioners of modern medicine. It took within its ambit homeopathic and indigenous systems of medicine as well. However, due to the promulgation of the Act, the appellants, who were not registered under the Act, were prevented from practicing as ‘Paramparya Vaidyas’..It was stressed upon by the Senior Counsel for the appellants that it was the custom that was developed in the community that the ‘Vaidyas’ practicing in these systems must pass their knowledge and heredity to another in the family. So as a custom of the community, the existing vaidyas have to preserve their old and indigenous systems to retain their heredity and custom. It was also contended that so many vaidyas practicing Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani Tibbi had applied to the government for licence in compliance with the provisions of the Act but the State Government did not take any positive steps with regard to the same. Instead the police and other authorities have been harassing them for practicing in respective system of medicines without obtaining license or exemption as per Section 38 of the Act..It was also further contended that it is settled law that any mandatory prohibition has to be in express or unambiguous terms and the alleged prohibition under Section 38 is to be understood in the context of Section 32 of the Act..The Court after hearing the parties proceeded to analyse the relevant provisions of the statute. Section 23 of the Act provides for eligibility conditions for registration of medical practitioners. Under sub-Section (1), a holder of a recognized qualification or holding appointment under the government at the commencement of the Act and every other practitioner who has been in regular practice for 5 years preceding April 1, 1953, who applies within one year have been made eligible for registration. However, by Section 38 of the Act, persons not registered under the Act have been prohibited from practicing various types of medicines..However, the first proviso empowers the State Government to exempt any person or class of persons from undergoing registration. Pursuant to the same, the Government of Kerala had granted exemption to some traditional practitioners like those who belonged to the renowned Ashtavaidya families, the Court noted..It held that the capacity to diagnose the disease would depend upon the fact as to whether the practitioner had the necessary professional skill to do so. Acquisition of professional skill is again a regulated subject and the measure thereof is the possession of a prescribed Diploma or Degree awarded by a recognized Institution, the Bench held. It, therefore, held that in that respect, the appellants are not qualified to practice medicine..“what one might enquire with regard to the right to practice medicine in the light of the above is as to whether the appellants are equipped with such a professional qualification. The answer is, obviously, in the negative, as admittedly, the appellants do not possess any prescribed Diploma or Degree from a recognized institution for that purpose. Even a person who has acquired the prescribed Diploma or Degree from a recognized institution would not be entitled to practice medicine unless he is so registered under the provisions of the IMCC Act.”.The Court then lamented at the fact that even after 70 years of independence, persons having little knowledge or having no recognized or approved qualification are practicing medicine and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people..While acknowledging that right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business is a fundamental right under the Constitution, it held that the right is subject to any law relating to the professional or technical qualification necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation or trade or business. It was for this reason that the government enacted statutory provisions to regulate the profession..“The Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 as well as the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 were also enacted on the similar lines. Every practitioner shall be deemed to be a practitioner registered under the Act if at the commencement of this Act, his name stands entered in the appropriate register maintained under the said Act and every certificate of registration issued to every such practitioner shall be deemed to be a certificate of registration issued under this Act.”.Holding that the appellants in the present case have failed to show that they possessed requisite recognized qualification for registration entitling them to practice Indian system of medicines or their names have been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement of this Act, the Court held that the appeals lack merit and proceeded to dismiss the same..Read the judgment below.