A recent social media clash between a hepatologist and a chess grandmaster reignited longstanding controversy over AYUSH doctors' legal rights—specifically their ability to use the “Dr” prefix, prescribe modern medicines, or perform medical procedures. The issue isn’t symbolic. It goes to the heart of patient safety, legal clarity, and public trust in India’s pluralist healthcare system.

Indian law, including the landmark Supreme Court verdict in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand (1998), clearly prohibits AYUSH practitioners from prescribing allopathic medicines unless explicitly authorized by state regulations. Yet, certain states continue to invoke Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to partially override this ruling, leading to legal uncertainty and repeated litigation from bodies like the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

The contradiction is compounded by the fact that while legislation like the NCISM Act, 2020 formally recognizes Ayurvedic and Unani qualifications, it also draws a clear line around scope of practice. Recent notifications allowing AYUSH postgraduates to perform limited surgical procedures have intensified concerns around training adequacy, use of anaesthesia, and antibiotic management.

Critics argue that allowing so-called “crosspathy” jeopardizes clinical standards, fosters misrepresentation, and exposes patients—especially in rural areas with limited health literacy—to harm or mistaken trust. Consumer complaints often point to confusion when AYUSH doctors are mistaken for MBBS practitioners.

As India balances cultural pride in traditional medicine with global aspirations for evidence-based healthcare, experts suggest a middle path: enforce uniform compliance with Supreme Court judgments, establish clear statutory boundaries, upgrade AYUSH curricula to include modern medicine essentials, and explore supervised integration models. This ensures patient safety isn't compromised in the name of tradition.