Why did NCISM clarify the use of the term ‘quack’?

What happened: NCISM clarification on the word “quack” and registered ISM practitioners

The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) issued a clarification that practitioners who are properly qualified, registered, and authorised under the NCISM Act are not liable to be branded “quacks” or called “bogus doctors” merely because they practise within recognised Indian systems of medicine. The clarification covers Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, and Sowa-Rigpa.

NCISM said the clarification responds to reports that registered ISM practitioners were being targeted through public notices, media criticism, and harassment. NCISM’s stated intent was to protect the legal and professional standing of registered ISM practitioners and to prevent confusion between two categories: lawful practice under recognised ISM systems, and fraudulent practice by unqualified individuals who falsely claim to be doctors.

Background and earlier position: lawful ISM practice is distinct from fraudulent practice

NCISM also clarified what the term “quack” generally refers to. In ordinary regulatory use, “quack” means someone who falsely claims medical qualifications or practices without the required registration. NCISM’s emphasis was on preventing the misuse of the “quack” label against legally registered ISM practitioners.

NCISM’s clarification limits its scope in an important way: it does not claim equivalence between ISM practitioners and doctors with MBBS qualifications (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery). NCISM also did not remove differences between medical systems.