Ethics · 11 Aug 2026

mixopathy Poonam Verma negligence

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court's ruling in Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel (1996) held unauthorised cross-system medical practice to be negligence per se.
Reason (R): The Supreme Court, in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand vs State of Punjab (1998), subsequently held that no state legislature may ever authorise practitioners of one medical system to prescribe medicines of another system.
Which one of the following is correct?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
CA is true, but R is false
DA is false, but R is true
This question is based on: The Homeopath, the Bridge Course and the Patient Who Never Gets to Choose
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 11 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The registration of Maharashtra's first CCMP-qualified homeopath to prescribe allopathic medicines has reignited the mixopathy debate, with the enabling 2014 state amendment still sub judice and Madhya Pradesh reportedly seeking a similar arrangement.

Why for UPSC

UPSC Ethics-linked polity/legal questions often test whether two related judgments are being conflated - here, the exam-relevant nuance is that one judgment restricts unauthorised cross-practice while a later one upholds a specific legislative route to authorise it.

Prelims summary

Poonam Verma (1996) called unauthorised cross-practice negligence per se; Mukhtiar Chand (1998) upheld a state's power to legislatively authorise integrated-course practitioners to prescribe allopathic medicine.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.