A Writ Petition requesting interference in the recognition of Electro-Homeopathy as an alternative medical system was denied by the Delhi High Court.
A Writ Petition (a petition or an application by a petitioner where prayer is made for issuance of Writ' for the redress of their grievances) asking the Ministry of Ayush's Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory to examine the Krauss and Zimpel formulations found in the German Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia was being heard by the court. The purpose of the analysis is to support the Inter-Departmental Committee in making a well-informed judgment about the acceptance of an alternative medical system.
The Justice Subramonium Prasad bench noted, "Whether to recognize a new/alternate system of medicine is purely a matter of policy. Courts do not interfere with policy and do not lay down policies.”
The petitioner, a licensed electro-homeopath, requested that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare recognize electro-homeopathy. He submitted RTI requests to learn more about the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia's legal standing as well as the effectiveness of certain formulas. The Petitioner pointed out that no efficacy analysis of particular formulations was conducted, but responses proved that the German Pharmacopoeia was recognized. The Ministry published a notice about the recognition of new medical systems, but the petitioner's response was not received in a timely manner. The Inter-Departmental Committee concluded in 2021 that there was insufficient scientific evidence supporting electro-homeopathy and urged further clinical evidence and standardization.
The Court observed that the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory's purpose is to analyze or test drug samples that may be sent to it under sub-Section 2 of Section 11 or sub-Section 4 of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, in accordance with the previously mentioned Rule 3A (7) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945.
The Court cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Academy of Nutrition Improvement & Ors. v. Union of India, 2011 (8) SCC 274, wherein the Court found that the Courts have to exercise caution while intervening in cases concerning public health.
The Court quoted, “This Court in a series of decisions has reiterated that courts should not rush in where even scientists and medical experts are careful to tread. The rule of prudence is that courts will be reluctant to interfere with policy decisions taken by the Government, in matters of public health, after collecting and analyzing inputs from surveys and research. Nor will courts attempt to substitute their views as to what is wise, safe, prudent or proper, in relation to technical issues relating to public health in preference of those formulated by persons said to possess technical expertise and rich experience.”
The Court stated that the Inter-Departmental Committee is evaluating whether or not Electro Homeopathy qualifies as a novel or alternative medical system, and it is awaiting additional review from multiple organizations involved in the subject.
The Inter-Departmental Committee's stance that it will not accept an individual's application does not justify any interference, the Court stated, and the clinical studies are not within Respondent No. 2's jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Court.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Priyanka Pandey/MSM)
