Gujarat High Court Takes Up Case Against Ayurveda Doctor's Alleged Allopathic Practice
The Gujarat High Court has issued notices to the state government and multiple regulatory authorities following a complaint against an ayurveda doctor who is allegedly practicing allopathic medicine without proper authorization. The case highlights growing concerns about medical practice boundaries and regulatory oversight in India's healthcare system.
Petitioner Alleges Unauthorized Allopathic Practice
The petition was filed by Gulam Nabi Bukhari, a resident of Porbandar, who brought attention to the activities of Pragnesh Kanani, an ayurvedic practitioner operating in Ranavav town of Porbandar district. According to the complaint, Kanani holds a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree but has been actively practicing allopathy, which he is not legally entitled to do under existing medical regulations.
Through his legal representatives, Hemal Shah and Dhwani Lakhani, the petitioner detailed that he had initially complained to the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine about Kanani's allopathic practice and prescription of allopathic medicines. While some basic allopathic medications may be permitted for primary treatment under certain circumstances, the lawyers emphasized that Kanani was prescribing heavy drugs, including Schedule-H medications that require specific authorization.
Regulatory Inaction Prompts Court Intervention
The petitioner's complaint was forwarded by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine to the Gujarat Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine in October 2025. This board serves as the primary authority responsible for taking action on such complaints within the state. However, despite this referral, the board failed to take any substantial action against the alleged violations.
This regulatory inaction ultimately compelled the petitioner to approach the Gujarat High Court, seeking judicial intervention to ensure proper enforcement of medical practice laws. The petition specifically requests directions to the concerned authorities to take necessary legal action against the practitioner in question.
Government's Response and Court's Observations
During the court proceedings, the government lawyer argued that the petitioner should have filed a public interest litigation instead of seeking action against an individual practitioner, since Bukhari was not directly affected by the alleged violations nor seeking personal relief.
Justice Aniruddha Mayee, presiding over the case, noted that "the petitioner prays for an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to take necessary action in accordance with law." The court subsequently issued formal notices to multiple parties, including the state government, the commissioner of health, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, the Gujarat Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, district and taluka health officers, the Gujarat Medical Council, and the ayurveda practitioner accused of unauthorized allopathic practice.
Broader Implications for Medical Regulation
This case raises significant questions about the enforcement of medical practice boundaries in India, particularly regarding practitioners who may be operating outside their authorized scope of practice. The incident underscores the importance of clear regulatory frameworks and consistent enforcement mechanisms to maintain standards in both traditional and modern medical systems.
The court's intervention suggests that judicial oversight may become necessary when regulatory bodies fail to address complaints adequately. The outcome of this case could potentially influence how similar complaints are handled in the future and might prompt reforms in how medical practice violations are monitored and addressed across different healthcare systems in India.
