Homeopath challenges state’s move to end dual registration for modern medicine practice

A Pune homeopathy practitioner has challenged Maharashtra's decision to stop registering CCMP-qualified homeopaths for modern medicine in the Bombay HC.

MUMBAI: A Pune-based homeopathy practitioner has approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the Maharashtra government’s recent decision to discontinue the separate registration of homeopaths authorised to practise modern medicine after completing the Certificate Course in Modern Pharmacology (CCMP).

Homeopath challenges state’s move to end dual registration for modern medicine practice

The petitioner, Dr Rashi Vinod Mordia, has alleged that the decision undermines previous legal rulings that upheld the right of CCMP-qualified homeopaths to practise allopathy, particularly in rural and underserved areas. A division bench of justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale has directed the state authorities to respond to the petition and posted the matter for hearing on July 28.

In her plea, filed through advocate Sagar Kursija, Dr Mordia has challenged a July 11 circular issued by the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC), which instructed officials to stop the separate registration of homeopathic practitioners who had completed the CCMP course. On the same day, the state drug commissionerate also withdrew earlier permissions that allowed the sale of modern medicines based on prescriptions by such practitioners.

The CCMP course was introduced following amendments in 2014 to the Maharashtra Homeopathic Medical Practitioners Act and the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, allowing homeopaths who completed a year-long CCMP training to practise modern medicine. On April 24, 2025, the medical education and drugs department had directed the MMC to maintain a separate register for such practitioners.

However, just three months later, the same department reversed its stand without offering detailed reasons.

Dr Mordia’s petition notes that the Pune branch of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) had earlier challenged the 2014 amendments, but the Bombay High Court had declined to stay their implementation. A subsequent special leave petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed in July 2015.

In this context, the petition argues that the July 11 decision appears to be a backdoor attempt to bypass the apex court’s refusal to interfere with the amended law. It alleges that the IMA again made a representation to the chief minister on July 1, which directly influenced the reversal of the registration policy.

Further, the petition emphasises that the 2014 amendments were part of a deliberate policy initiative aimed at addressing the shortage of medical professionals in rural areas and ensuring wider access to healthcare through government health schemes.

“The state’s sudden U-turn undermines the very objective of providing affordable and accessible healthcare to the rural population,” the plea states, urging the court to stay the July 11 circular and reinstate the earlier registration policy.