Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment dealing with professional ethics and statutory restrictions on dual professions, has held that a registered Homoeopathic practitioner cannot be enrolled as an advocate unless her registration as a medical practitioner is first cancelled. The Court observed that a person who continues to hold a statutory right to practise medicine cannot simultaneously claim that she is not engaged in another profession for the purpose of enrolment under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in the case of T.M. Manju v. Bar Council of Kerala and Others, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273. The case arose from a writ petition filed by a Homoeopathic doctor challenging the decision of the Bar Council of Kerala refusing to enrol her as an advocate while her name continued in the medical register.

The petitioner had initially pursued a career in Homoeopathy and was a registered medical practitioner entitled to practise under the relevant statutes governing medical professionals in the State. While practising medicine, she decided to study law and subsequently enrolled in a three-year Unitary LL.B course. According to the petitioner, she discontinued her medical practice by cancelling the licence issued by the Municipality for running her clinic. Thereafter, she completed her law degree and successfully cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), thereby becoming eligible for enrolment as an advocate.

Following the completion of these formalities, the petitioner submitted an application before the Bar Council of Kerala seeking enrolment as an advocate on November 17, 2025. During verification of documents, the Bar Council noticed that the petitioner had not uploaded a certificate showing cancellation of her registration as a Homoeopathic doctor. The Bar Council therefore sought clarification from her.

In response, the petitioner submitted an affidavit stating that although she had cancelled the municipal licence for operating the clinic, she had not actively practised medicine thereafter. She also furnished an undertaking declaring that she would not simultaneously engage in the legal and medical professions and that if she ever intended to return to medical practice, she would inform the Bar Council and suspend her enrolment as an advocate.

Despite these assurances, the petitioner later discovered that her name did not appear in the list of candidates approved for enrolment in January 2026. Aggrieved by this decision, she approached the High Court challenging the proceedings of the enrolment committee which had resolved to consider her application only after cancellation of her registration as a medical practitioner.

The case raised important questions regarding the interpretation of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, and the ethical principle that a legal practitioner must not simultaneously remain engaged in another profession. The matter also involved a broader examination of professional exclusivity and whether mere cessation of actual practice is sufficient if a person continues to retain statutory authority to practise another regulated profession.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner argued that the Bar Council of Kerala had acted beyond the scope of its authority by insisting that she cancel her medical registration before enrolment as an advocate. According to her, Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which prescribes the qualifications for enrolment as an advocate, does not require an applicant to cancel registration in another profession before seeking enrolment.

The petitioner contended that the restrictions against simultaneous professional practice become relevant only after enrolment as an advocate and commencement of legal practice. She maintained that there was no statutory prohibition preventing a person holding qualifications in another field from obtaining enrolment under the Advocates Act.

It was further argued that she had already discontinued medical practice in substance and spirit. Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the municipal licence issued for operating the Homoeopathic clinic had been cancelled and that she had ceased practising medicine from the date of such cancellation. The petitioner also emphasised the undertaking submitted before the Bar Council wherein she had specifically assured that she would not engage in the medical profession simultaneously with legal practice.

The petitioner submitted that the Bar Council ought to have considered her bona fide intention to shift careers rather than insisting upon formal cancellation of medical registration. According to her, mere retention of her name in the register of medical practitioners did not automatically mean that she was actively engaged in the medical profession.

Reliance was placed on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which grants citizens the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The petitioner argued that unreasonable barriers could not be imposed upon her right to transition from one profession to another.

On the other hand, the Bar Council of Kerala defended its decision and contended that it was duty-bound to ensure that applicants seeking enrolment as advocates are not engaged in any other profession at the time of enrolment.

The respondents relied heavily on Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979. The rule requires every applicant seeking enrolment to declare that he or she is not engaged in any trade, business, or profession. According to the Bar Council, the petitioner could not truthfully make such a declaration while her name continued in the register of medical practitioners.

The Bar Council argued that a person whose name remains in the statutory medical register continues to possess a legal right to practise medicine and is therefore “engaged” in that profession, irrespective of whether actual practice is currently being carried on.

The respondents further submitted that allowing simultaneous entitlement to practise two professions would create serious ethical and practical complications. According to them, the legal profession demands undivided loyalty and professional commitment, which would be compromised if advocates were permitted to retain rights in other regulated professions.

The Bar Council also relied upon provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021. It was pointed out that these enactments themselves impose restrictions on registered medical practitioners from engaging in other professions without sanction from the competent medical authority.

Reliance was further placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa [(1996) 3 SCC 342], wherein the Apex Court upheld restrictions preventing simultaneous practice of medicine and law. The respondents argued that the Supreme Court had already recognised the importance of maintaining exclusivity and integrity in professional practice.

The Bar Council therefore maintained that unless the petitioner formally surrendered her registration as a medical practitioner, she could not be permitted to enrol as an advocate.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the decision of the Bar Council of Kerala refusing enrolment to the petitioner while her name remained in the register of medical practitioners.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas undertook a detailed examination of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, and the statutory framework governing medical practitioners.

At the outset, the Court noted that Section 24 of the Advocates Act requires fulfilment not only of the statutory qualifications prescribed under the Act but also of the conditions specified in the rules framed by State Bar Councils. The Court observed that Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules specifically mandates that an applicant seeking enrolment must declare that he or she is not engaged in any trade, business, or profession.

The central question before the Court was therefore the meaning of the expression “engaged in any profession.”

For interpreting the term “engaged,” the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Carew and Co. v. Union of India [(1975) 2 SCC 791], where the expression was interpreted broadly to include not merely actual activity but also the legal entitlement or right to involve oneself in a profession.

Applying this principle, the High Court held that a person whose name continues in the medical register remains statutorily entitled to practise medicine and must therefore be regarded as engaged in that profession.

The Court observed that it would be practically impossible for the Bar Council to verify whether a registered medical practitioner is actually practising medicine or earning remuneration from the profession on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, the existence of a legal right to practise another profession itself becomes sufficient to attract the disqualification.

The Court held:

“Hence, the term ‘engaged in any profession’, as envisaged in Rule 2(h) of Chapter V of BCK Rules has to be interpreted as being entitled to or having a right to pursue another profession with the possibility of earning a remuneration.”

Justice Thomas further stressed the ethical dimensions involved in professional practice. The Court observed that professions like law and medicine require complete dedication and undivided loyalty.

In a strongly worded observation, the Court remarked:

“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 also referred to Section 31(2) of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, which prohibits a registered medical practitioner from pursuing another profession without sanction from the medical council concerned.

Significantly, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, where restrictions on simultaneous practice of law and medicine were upheld as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

The Court clarified that although citizens possess a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practise professions of their choice, such rights are not absolute and remain subject to reasonable statutory restrictions designed to preserve professional integrity and ethical standards.

The Court therefore concluded that mere closure of the clinic or cessation of actual medical practice could not override the legal reality that the petitioner continued to possess statutory authority to practise medicine as long as her registration remained valid.

The Bench ultimately held that the Bar Council was justified in refusing enrolment and that a registered Homoeopathic practitioner could lawfully be denied enrolment as an advocate unless the medical registration was formally cancelled.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that the legal profession demands exclusive professional allegiance and that statutory entitlement to practise another regulated profession constitutes sufficient ground for denying enrolment as an advocate.