A legal battle over professional identity has resulted in a significant ruling from the Kerala High Court: there is no statutory monopoly over the use of the prefix “Dr.”

The case arose from a challenge mounted by medical practitioners against provisions of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 (NCAHP Act), and the competency-based curriculum framed for physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The petitioners contended that permitting such professionals to function as first-contact healthcare providers and to use the prefix “Dr” blurred the line between modern medical practitioners and allied health professionals.

Their argument rested on the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (NMC Act), which regulates the practice of modern medicine. According to the petitioners, only individuals holding recognised medical qualifications and enrolled in the State or National Register are entitled to practise modern medicine. Allowing physiotherapists and occupational therapists to prefix their names with “Dr,” they argued, would mislead the public into believing that they were qualified allopathic doctors.

The High Court disagreed.

Tracing the legislative background of the NCAHP Act, the Court noted that Parliament had consciously created a regulatory framework for allied and healthcare professions after detailed deliberation and stakeholder consultation. The Act recognises healthcare professionals as degree-holders trained for a minimum of 3,600 hours across three to six years, authorised to provide preventive, curative, rehabilitative and therapeutic services within their defined scope.

Crucially, the Court clarified that such professionals are not authorised to prescribe allopathic medicines or practise modern medicine as defined under the NMC Act. Their services, though distinct, may sometimes operate alongside medical practitioners in a multidisciplinary framework.

On the issue of the “Dr” prefix, the Court made an important observation: neither the NMC Act nor related statutes confer an exclusive statutory right on registered medical practitioners to use the title. Historically, the term “Doctor” originated as an academic designation for learned scholars long before it became associated with physicians. Even today, individuals holding doctoral degrees such as PhDs are entitled to use the title.

In the absence of a statutory provision granting exclusive entitlement to medical practitioners, the Court held that claims of monopoly over the prefix were misplaced. It declined to read down the provisions of the NCAHP Act or interfere with legislative policy.

The writ petitions were dismissed.

The judgment underscores a broader regulatory shift toward multidisciplinary healthcare frameworks, while reaffirming that statutory interpretation must be grounded in legislative text — not professional convention.

IML Insight

This ruling highlights the growing complexity of professional boundaries in modern healthcare regulation. As new statutory bodies formalise allied health professions, disputes over scope, nomenclature and perceived hierarchy are likely to intensify. For healthcare institutions, clarity in role definition and transparent representation of qualifications remain critical. Courts, however, will anchor their analysis in statutory language — not customary assumptions about titles.

Source : Order pronounced by Kerala High Court on 22nd January, 2026.