Summary
The Court modified directions against homeopathic practitioners because the High Court had read the 2020 AYUSH advisory too narrowly as permitting only immunity boosters. The advisory and guidelines also contemplated symptom management and adjunctive interventions under their conditions. The prohibition on claiming or advertising a COVID-19 cure remained. The decision concerned the scope of those historical directions and guidelines, rather than authorising unrestricted treatment.
Issues
- Whether the High Court correctly confined the AYUSH advisory to immunity boosters.
- What restrictions on treatment claims and advertising remained applicable.
Provisions considered
- Homeopathy: preventive/prophylactic, symptom management and add-on interventions, Ministry of AYUSH advisory dated 6 March 2020The advisory’s three identified categories were wider than immunity boosters alone; practitioners remained bound by the advisory and subsequent guidelines. (¶¶ 14–17, 21–24)
- Therapeutic aid and practitioner/authorisation requirements, AYUSH guidelines for homeopathic practitioners for COVID-19, 2020Adjunctive care required the stipulated permissions, qualified practitioners and safeguards; the Court read the guidelines as providing therapeutic aid within their terms. (¶ 21–24)
- Regulation 6(1)–(2), Homeopathic Practitioners (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1982The professional advertising prohibition, subject to its stated exceptions, independently supported rejection of advertisements claiming competence to cure COVID-19. (¶ 18–19)
Held
- The 6 March advisory contemplated preventive and prophylactic use, symptom management of COVID-like illness and add-on interventions to conventional care. The High Court’s statement that practitioners could prescribe only immunity boosters did not correctly comprehend its scope. (¶ 14–17)
- Practitioners remained subject to the advisory and subsequent guidelines. Those guidelines contemplated adjunctive care with permission of local health authorities and the hospital superintendent, institutional qualification and the specified hospital-setting approvals and patient or guardian willingness where applicable. This was not unrestricted permission to replace conventional treatment. (¶ 21–24)
- The High Court correctly prohibited claims of a COVID-19 cure. Professional regulations also restricted advertising and patient solicitation. However, its directions for action against practitioners rested on an unduly narrow reading and exceeded the limited prayer to implement the advisory, requiring modification. (¶¶ 18–20, 23–24)
Result
Appeal disposed of with High Court paragraph 14 directions modified to the indicated extent; compliance with the AYUSH advisory and guidelines required. Impleadment applications rejected.