"Purely A Matter Of Policy": Delhi HC Rejects Plea Seeking Its Interference In Recognition Of Electro-Homeopathy As Alternative System Of Medicine

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition requesting the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory, under the Ministry of Ayush, to analyze the Krauss and Zimpel formulations listed in the German Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia. The analysis is aimed to assist the Inter-Departmental Committee in making an informed decision regarding the recognition of an alternative system of medicine.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “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.”

Advocate Dhruv Surana appeared for the Appellant and CGSC Monika Arora appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The petitioner, a qualified electro-homeopath, sought recognition for electro-homeopathy from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. He filed RTI applications seeking information on the legal status of the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and the efficacy of certain formulations. Responses confirmed recognition of the German Pharmacopoeia but Petitioner noted that no efficacy analysis of specific formulations was done. The Ministry issued a notice on recognizing new medicine systems but the petitioner’s representation was not timely received. In 2021, the Inter-Departmental Committee found that electro-homeopathy lacked sufficient scientific data and called for more detailed clinical evidence and standardization.

The Court noted that as per the said Rule 3A (7) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, the function of the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory is to analyze or test such samples of drugs as 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.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Apex Court in the Academy of Nutrition Improvement & Ors. v. Union of India, 2011 (8) SCC 274 where according to the Court it was held that the Courts must be reluctant to interfere in matters relating to 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 analysing 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 said that the Inter-Departmental Committee is considering whether Electro Homeopathy should be considered as a new/alternate system of medicine and is awaiting further analysis from various groups which are working in the field.

The Court noted that the Clinical studies are not covered under the purview of Respondent No.2 and according to the Court, the stand of the Inter-Departmental Committee that it will not accept the application from an individual does not warrant any interference.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.