Telangana High Court quashed FIRs against AYUSH doctors accused of "illegal" allopathic practice based on a Telangana Medical Council (TMC) complaint.
Allegation: AYUSH doctors were prescribing allopathic medicines, administering IV fluids, and injections—claimed to amount to quackery.
Charges invoked:
l Sections 318(4), 319(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (cheating, impersonation)
l Section 34 r/w 54 of NMC Act
l Section 22 r/w 20(ii) of Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act
Defence arguments
l They never posed as MBBS doctors; were practising within AYUSH framework.
l Cited 1996 CCIM notification and 2017 AYUSH memo allowing limited modern medicine use by AYUSH practitioners.
l Under Rule 8 of AP Medical Council Rules, 2013, complaints against non-allopathic practitioners must go to the Commissioner, AYUSH, not directly to police.
l TMC lacked suo motu power to file complaint.
l FIRs lacked details—no prescriptions, impersonation, or deceived persons identified.
Court’s analysis of Rule 8 (APMC Rules, 2013)
l Unqualified/quacks practising modern medicine → police complaint.
l De registered practitioners continuing practice → disciplinary action.
l Registered modern medicine practitioners committing misconduct → council inquiry and discipline.
l Non allopathic practitioners practising modern medicine → Commissioner, AYUSH must act (relevant here).
l Chemists dispensing drugs from AYUSH practitioners’ prescriptions → action by Drug Inspector under Drugs & Cosmetics Act.
Key judicial findings
l AYUSH doctors prescribing allopathic medicine falls under category 4, not quackery; thus, Commissioner of AYUSH is competent authority.
l TMC directly filing police complaint was impermissible.
Procedural defects:
l Section 54 NMC Act requires authorised NMC official; TMC report not valid basis for prosecution.
l Cheating/impersonation charges failed for lack of specifics.
l Court ruled FIRs invalid under Section 528 BNSS (power to quash to prevent abuse of law).
Reaffirmation of legal limits
l Court reiterated that AYUSH doctors cannot legally prescribe allopathic medicines unless separately registered.
l Relied on Supreme Court’s Dr Mukhtiar Chand (1998) judgment affirming this prohibition.
l Decision is not a blanket license; rather, a procedural correction.
Outcome and implications
l FIRs quashed due to procedural and evidentiary flaws.
l TMC is free to file fresh action if they follow proper procedure and provide adequate particulars.
l Highlights regulatory complexity between medical councils, AYUSH, and enforcement agencies.
l Sets precedent for channelled complaints via AYUSH Commissioner, not direct police FIRs, against non-allopathic practitioners.
Telangana HC quashed FIRs against AYUSH doctors accused of “illegal” allopathic practice, citing procedural lapses by the Medical Council. Court held that such cases must first go through the AYUSH Commissioner, not police, and found no evidence of cheating/impersonation. It reaffirmed that AYUSH doctors cannot prescribe allopathy, but allowed TMC to act afresh if proper procedure is followed.
Comments
Post a Comment