Maharashtra CCMP row: NCH clarifies rules on homoeopaths practicing modern medicine

The National Commission for Homoeopathy (NCH) has clarified the circumstances under which homoeopathic practitioners may work outside their system of medicine, ahead of a Bombay High Court hearing on Maharashtra’s controversial Certificate Course in Modern Pharmacology (CCMP).

The clarification, issued last week, comes amid opposition from modern medicine doctors to Maharashtra’s decision to register CCMP-qualified homoeopaths with the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC).

The dispute, which dates back to 2014, is expected to come up before the High Court later this week.

Dr Ravi Wankhedkar, former national president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), said the case could now move toward a final hearing. He said the MMC has issued only the first registration so far and has not granted further registrations since the controversy emerged.

The NCH’s clarification draws attention to its 2022 professional conduct regulations, which generally prohibit homoeopathic practitioners from practicing another system of medicine.

However, a proviso creates an exception for practitioners working under a national health program or another central or state government program, provided they have completed training or a course recognized or prescribed by the competent authority.

The commission also referred to its BHMS regulations, which recognize the participation of homoeopathic graduates in government health facilities and National Health Programs. It said the latest clarification was intended to place these provisions within their appropriate regulatory framework.

The NCH has not, however, granted homoeopaths a blanket authorization to practice modern medicine. Whether Maharashtra’s CCMP qualifies under the regulatory exception, and whether completing the course can justify registration with a modern-medicine council, remain matters for the court to decide.

The Maharashtra dispute is part of a broader debate in India over “bridge courses,” which seek to provide practitioners trained in other systems of medicine with additional skills to deliver limited primary healthcare, particularly in areas with inadequate access to doctors.

Modern medicine practitioners have repeatedly opposed such initiatives, arguing that prescribing medicines requires more than pharmacological knowledge and is closely linked to diagnosis, clinical training and the ability to handle complications.

Under Maharashtra’s CCMP framework, BHMS graduates can undergo additional training in modern pharmacology. The issue gained renewed attention this year after the state began registering CCMP-qualified practitioners with the MMC.

An estimated 10,000 BHMS graduates have completed the CCMP over the years.

The registration issue is at the center of the current dispute. Wankhedkar said the NCH clarification appears to provide the court with a clearer understanding of the regulatory position surrounding the CCMP, with the commission “trying to balance” the relevant provisions.

He also distinguished between permission to prescribe specified modern medicines in limited circumstances and inclusion in the statutory register that regulates practitioners of modern medicine.

That distinction has been a key point in the protests by doctors. Some states already permit practitioners from other systems, including Ayurveda, to prescribe specified modern medicines under defined conditions.

Critics, however, contend that Maharashtra’s decision goes further by connecting CCMP qualification with registration under the MMC.

The dispute therefore extends beyond whether a homoeopathic practitioner can prescribe a particular modern drug. It also raises questions about who can be registered and regulated as a modern-medicine practitioner, and the legal framework under which such recognition can be granted.

The IMA and members of the Maharashtra Medical Council challenged the state’s move before the Bombay High Court in 2014. The Supreme Court subsequently directed the High Court to expedite the case, but the legal challenge has remained unresolved.