Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his right to practice acupuncture and run acupuncture clinics in the name of Rishi Acupuncture Centre in different places of Tiruppur District and Dindigul District.

2.The petitioner claims that he is a B.Com graduate and has also obtained a diploma in acupuncture science in Alagappa University in first class in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis April, 2019. He thereafter established four acupuncture clinics under the name and style of Rishi Acupuncture Centre at three places in Tiruppur District and one at Palani in Dindigul District.

10.The rival submissions are carefully weighed. What is not in controversy is that acupuncture as a mode of therapy is yet to be regulated statutorily. Therefore, on the face of it, the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997 cannot apply. However, if anyone who is not adequately qualified to practice acupuncture as a mode of therapy practices the same, then it would expose him or her to certain penal consequence but, still the treatment cannot be interfered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997. When courses in acupuncture are conducted by recognized Universities, it necessarily follows that those who are qualified after undergoing the course successfully are entitled to practice the same, as it would fall within the fundamental right of the individuals concerned under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

11.Therefore, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the petitioner is entitled to practice acupuncture and if at all, any Law Enforcement Agency intends to interfere, it can only subject to its satisfaction whether the qualification of the petitioner is genuine or not and once, it is established to be genuine, the Law Enforcement Agency cannot interfere with the right of the petitioner to practice a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis profession/avocation within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

13.This takes this Court to the last leg of this case. In W.P.No.10311 of 2016, a learned Single Judge of this Court has directed that only those who practice other forms of medicine alone can practice acupuncture but, not independently. With due respect, it may have to be held that it does not appear to be consistent with the legal position which has already been explained above.