It is possible that a doctor accepting free foreign trips from pharmaceutical companies can forfeit his right to practise medicine. At worst, the drug firm paying for the trip would face a reprimand issued by its peers. This disparity raised the serious question that is now in front of the three-member committee set up by the Department of Pharmaceuticals on 22 October 2026, which is chaired by Dr M. Srinivas, the NITI Aayog member, alongside the former Union Health Secretary Preeti Sudan and Dr Naresh Trehan. The committee must submit its report within two months after the first meeting of the committee, which will determine whether India finally regulates the giver of drug bribes or issues yet another version of the code which would have no enforcement.
The committee comes into existence as a consequence of the Supreme Court ruling of 8 October 2026 in the case of Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India v. Union of India. In this ruling, the Court has found that the current system of regulation had "not proved entirely effective", noting that the effectiveness of any regulatory mechanism should be evaluated by the degree of its enforcement and not by just stating some norms. However, the Court did not want either to make the code statutory or to define the guidelines, maintaining that the choice of the system of regulation should be left to the executive. The Court only insisted that the government make a reasoned decision of the matter keeping the requirements under Article 21 in mind and listed the matter for 29 January 2027. The Court has postponed the discussion. Thus, it is now left for the committee to arrive at the decision.
According to Regulation 6.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which continues to be applicable even after the suspension of the National Medical Commission's code in 2023, physicians must not accept any sort of gifts, travel, hospitality, or cash from the industry; otherwise, they would be subjected to penalties including getting erased from the register. In Apex Laboratories v. DCIT (2022), the Supreme Court stated that the company cannot deduct any such expenditure from its taxable income because such practices are "prohibited by law." The Supreme Court went on to say that the relationship between a physician and a patient is a quasi-fiduciary one, which indicates that what a physician cannot take, the company cannot be rewarded for giving. Apart from that, starting from 2018, the Prevention of Corruption Act's Sections 8 and 9 affirm that giving an undue advantage to a public servant is a matter of criminal liability, including for a company, while the latter can avoid punishment by proving that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent such conduct.
However, there is an inconsistency in the notion. A physician working in the governmental sector is a public servant as well. Thus, handing a gift to such a doctor from a medical representative is criminal for the company. The same gift given to a private doctor is against the code at the industry level while the interests of the patients, that is, obtaining an unbiased prescription, do not change.
Self-regulation has not been successful. The Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2024 prohibits gifts and travel expenses for doctors, but complaints under it are decided by ethics committees within the pharmaceutical associations. The most severe consequences include expulsion or suspension from the association, restitution of advantage, and publicity. Reports made by anonymous individuals are disregarded. The logic follows. In August 2025, the Indian government informed the Lok Sabha that in the last five years no more than seven complaints were filed under the codes of 2015 and 2024, and only one company was sanctioned.
For comparison, in July 2022, the income tax department alleged that one specific company based in Bengaluru had distributed benefits worth around 10 billion rupees (Rs 1,000 crore) to doctors. The company denied these accusations. Regardless of whether the allegations correspond to reality, the case indicates that the alleged scheme was incredibly widespread, distinguishing it from the complaints system under the code. Bribery does not involve a complaining victim. Instead, both parties benefit and the patient stays in the dark.
In court, the Solicitor General claimed that large companies had by and large stopped such practices, while smaller businesses still continue them. This statement may be true, but the claim is impossible to check, as it is known that India does not collect relevant information. Therefore, the committee should ask companies to disclose rather than take the claim on trust.
Five Recommendations for the Committee
Public enforcer: Statutory regulation matters less than who is responsible for enforcing it. The executive and Parliament have the power to decide whether the vehicle is an amendment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, rules under an existing law, or a new law altogether. What cannot remain is a claim that the industry regulates itself. The industry's adjudicating bodies must be replaced by an authority that has the power to investigate the case, demand documents and impose fines.
Mandatory disclosure: All payments to a physician exceeding a certain threshold must be reported by the company and made publicly available through a database, which must be accessible using the doctor's registration number. Such a mechanism has been used in the United States since the adoption of the Sunshine Act and in France since the passage of the Loi Bertrand. The collection of data on Indian companies will demonstrate whether the Solicitor General is correct.
Verification: France serves as a warning since a report by the Cour des comptes points out that the state did not verify the companies' reports. A combination of random audits and a mechanism through which tax disallowances may initiate a marketing investigation must substantiate disclosure.
Deterrent penalties: Fines should be correlated to turnover and responsibility should be put on those who consented to and facilitated the violation in accordance with the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It should be possible to use a defence of adequate procedures in order to benefit from such a provision.
A complaint mechanism: Patients and medical representatives must be permitted to report violations directly to regulators, with their anonymity protected.
The only argument against this is the burden imposed on small producers of medicines. The application of the principle of proportionality solves it since it is possible to set thresholds for disclosures, simplified filing and fines that increase with a company's turnover. Granting a blanket exemption to small companies would not solve the problem since the goal of the regulators was to eradicate the practice of bribing.
This is not the first time that India has travelled down this path. In 2022, a committee was set up to look into the need for a legally binding means of enforcement, but instead opted to strengthen a prior policy statement with some changes. Now the Supreme Court finds itself faced with the fallout of the changes made in 2024, which fail the test for adequacy laid down by the Court itself. The new policy must be able to demonstrate that it is capable of enforcing the policy it sets out. The committee is faced with a challenging task: to provide a solution that is in line with the Court's thinking and one that delivers justice to all affected parties.
Author is a fourth-year B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) student at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. Views are personal.