Supreme Court Strikes Down Appointment of Homeopathy Commission Chair Dr Anil Khurana Over Ineligibility

Dr Mansoor Ali KR 

On February 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana as the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy, determining that his selection did not adhere to the legal stipulations outlined in the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020.

Background of the Case:
The legal proceedings were initiated by a petitioner Dr AL Patil who contested the appointments of both Dr. Anil Khurana as Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy and Dr. K.R. Janardanan Nair as President of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board under the same commission. The petitioner, also an applicant for these positions, argued that both appointees lacked the necessary experience as mandated by the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020.

Statutory Requirements:

According to Section 4(2) of the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, the Chairperson must:

• Possess a postgraduate degree in Homeopathy from a recognized university.
• Have a minimum of 20 years of experience in the field of Homeopathy.
• Out of these 20 years, at least 10 years should be in a leadership role, defined as serving as the Head of a Department or the Head of an Organization in areas related to healthcare delivery, growth, development, or education in Homeopathy.

The term “leader” is explicitly defined in the Act as the Head of a Department or the Head of an Organization.

Karnataka High Court Proceedings:

The Karnataka High Court initially examined the petition and delivered a split verdict:

• Dr. K.R. Janardanan Nair’s Appointment: The court upheld his appointment, concluding that he met the requisite experience and qualifications as per the Act.
• Dr. Anil Khurana’s Appointment: The court found that Dr. Khurana did not fulfill the experience criteria specified in Section 4(2). Specifically, it was noted that while Dr. Khurana served as Director General (in-charge) from August 2017 to April 2018 and as Director General from July 2019 to 2021, these periods amounted to approximately four years in leadership roles. This duration was insufficient to meet the mandatory requirement of at least 10 years in a leadership position.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan reviewed the case and concurred with the findings of the Karnataka High Court regarding Dr. Khurana’s appointment. The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment was not in accordance with the law and issued the following directives:

• Resignation Directive: Dr. Khurana was instructed to step down from the position of Chairperson within one week. During this period, he was permitted to complete ongoing assignments but was prohibited from making any policy decisions involving financial matters.
• Initiation of Fresh Appointment Process: The court mandated that a new selection process for the position of Chairperson be initiated promptly to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements.
• Retention of Benefits: The court clarified that any benefits Dr. Khurana had received during his tenure would remain unaffected. However, future entitlements would be determined based on the actual duration of his service as Chairperson.
• The case between Dr AL Patil and Dr K.R. Janardanan Nair is awaiting judgment from the Supreme Court. The petitioner unequivocally asserted that Dr. K.R. Janardanan Nair lacks the requisite qualifications.

Implications:
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that appointments to significant positions within statutory bodies strictly adhere to the qualifications and experience criteria established by law. The decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of selection processes for leadership roles in regulatory commissions.

Given that the Supreme Court has ruled Dr. Anil Khurana’s appointment as Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy invalid, all decisions made during his tenure that negatively impacted the field of homeopathy, its practitioners, or institutions should be thoroughly reviewed and relinquished if found to be legally unsound. Since his appointment did not meet the statutory eligibility criteria, any adverse policies, regulatory actions, or decisions affecting homeopathic education, research, or practice should be revisited to ensure fairness and compliance with the law. A fresh, legally appointed chairperson must re-evaluate these decisions to uphold justice, transparency, and the credibility of the Commission.