Pune Healthcare Faces Fresh Dispute Over CCMP Rules
A regulatory dispute over the registration of homeopathic practitioners trained in modern pharmacology has intensified in Maharashtra, with medical bodies questioning the state government’s handling of the process. The issue has implications for Pune, a major healthcare and medical education centre, as competing positions over professional registration, court proceedings and patient safeguards create uncertainty around the scope of practice.
The controversy centres on the Certificate Course in Modern Pharmacology (CCMP), a programme completed by Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) practitioners seeking conditional registration with the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC). The state had moved to establish a framework for such registration through a government resolution issued on August 3. Under the proposed framework, eligible BHMS practitioners could receive conditional registration to undertake limited modern-medicine practice. The arrangement has faced opposition from sections of the medical fraternity, including the Indian Medical Association and resident doctors’ groups, which have raised questions about professional boundaries, training standards and patient safety. The dispute escalated on August 18 when the Maharashtra government temporarily directed the MMC to pause the registration process until the Bombay High Court reaches a final decision. The move followed sustained representations and protests by medical organisations opposed to the registration framework.
The position changed again within days. On August 20, the government withdrew the August 18 communication and instructed the MMC to proceed in accordance with an earlier decision. The Council subsequently resumed registrations for eligible BHMS-CCMP practitioners. That rapid reversal has become the immediate administrative flashpoint. The medical association in Pune has alleged that contradictory instructions have created uncertainty while the broader legal dispute remains before the High Court. It has warned of further statewide action and indicated that it may pursue contempt proceedings if registration continues. These remain the association’s stated positions and are not findings of the court. For Pune’s healthcare system, the implications extend beyond professional rivalry. The city serves patients from across Maharashtra and neighbouring states, while its public and private hospitals also train large numbers of medical professionals. Any expansion of the pool of practitioners authorised to deliver modern-medicine services therefore needs clear limits on permitted procedures, prescribing powers, supervision and accountability.
The regulatory question is ultimately about creating a framework that is understandable to practitioners and patients alike. A clearly defined register, transparent eligibility criteria and an enforceable scope of practice could reduce uncertainty while the court proceedings continue. For Maharashtra, the next stage will depend on the High Court’s final determination and the state’s ability to align its administrative decisions with that legal process. Until then, Pune medical regulation remains a closely watched issue, with patient safety and clarity of professional responsibility likely to remain at its centre.
