Research Article
Navigating educational barriers: Bridging the gaps in forensic medicine and medical jurisprudence within Ayurveda studies in India
Background: The Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) curriculum was revised by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine in 2021–22. The updated syllabus now provides for extensive theoretical knowledge and skill development in forensic medicine (Agada Tantra evam Vidhi Vaidyaka), comparable with the MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) programme. This paper critically analyses these rigorous curricular reforms and argues that further steps are needed to provide practical training opportunities to Ayurveda students in line with those available to their MBBS counterparts in forensic medicine.
Methods: This study employs a non-empirical methodology, analysing the existing literature, curriculum frameworks, and professional guidelines to evaluate the current state of forensic medicine education within Ayurveda.
Results: The findings reveal significant gaps in the opportunities for practical training and regulatory restrictions for Ayurveda practitioners, which hinder them from effectively engaging with medico-legal issues in the clinical practice of forensic medicine.
Conclusion: Comprehensive practical training and interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial for bridging the gap between practitioners of Ayurveda and those of modern medicine. This would not only enhance the professional capabilities of Ayurveda practitioners but also contribute to an integrated and equitable healthcare system.
Copyright and license ©Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2026: Open Access and Distributed under the Creative Commons license ( CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits only non-commercial and non-modified sharing in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
The simple fact is that there is nothing ayurvedic about the autopsies done by today’s forensic doctors. As the paper concedes: “In the original Ayurvedic literature, such as the Samhitas, there is no mention of conducting autopsies; this practice emerged in the modern era and is detailed in contemporary medical textbooks, which the students in Ayurveda colleges also study in their undergraduate or postgraduate programme. Since post-mortems are performed on deceased bodies, the autopsy procedure is identical in both systems, with the key requirement being a thorough knowledge of anatomy, forensic medicine, and pathology.”
Given this, it is plain that a master’s course for ayurvedic doctors in forensic medicine has always been fundamentally ill-conceived. Filling the ayurvedic curriculum with non-ayurvedic subjects cannot fix the problem – two wrongs do not make a right. The only logical solution is to abolish the course altogether. Does it make any sense to have a master’s programme in a subject that has almost zero basis in ayurveda?
The problem of workforce shortages is to be addressed by training more people in forensic medicine. The ayurvedic degrees are not meant to fill up the workforce shortages in departments that are largely modern medicine-based.
Parity between medical systems does not come by merely mimicking the academic hierarchy of modern medicine. Ayurveda must realise that its core competence is in delivering quality primary care. With some complementation from modern medicine, ayurvedic graduates can deliver excellently as first contact doctors in India. But that dream can be realised only when ayurveda becomes more self-aware of its strengths and undergoes evidence-informed revisions. Sans this, it will continue to dangle in areas that are not really its own. The above article only promotes such dangling.