Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court today directed the Union of India to constitute a committee to recommend statutory regulations to curb unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies.

"The committee will consider the suggestions and representations and give its recommendations to the Union. The matter is directed to be listed on 29th January for consideration of compliance affidavit by the Union," the Court pronounced.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the order in a petition seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices to curb unethical interactions between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

The Court had reserved order on the plea after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Union government will constitute a three-member committee to examine whether a statutory framework is needed to regulate unethical practices by pharmaceutical companies.

Background

The Court had earlier questioned whether the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024 had sufficient enforcement mechanisms. It had also questioned whether the Union government intended to give statutory backing to the Code, noting that the absence of government control could make the purportedly mandatory regime almost voluntary.

During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, relying on the Centre's affidavit dated August 17, 2026, said that detailed deliberations have taken place between the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Legal Affairs. He submitted that the existing regulatory framework provided for disciplinary action against doctors who accepted gifts, travel facilities, hospitality or monetary grants from pharmaceutical companies. However, on the issue of regulating pharmaceutical companies themselves, he said that the government had decided to constitute a three-member committee to examine whether statutory regulation was necessary and, if so, what form it should take.

Mehta said that the committee was expected to submit its report within two months, after which the government would take a decision, while the UCPMP would continue to govern pharmaceutical marketing practices in the meantime. The petitioners, however, questioned the need for another committee, pointing out that the Centre had told the Court in an earlier affidavit filed in 2022 that a high-level committee had already been constituted to examine the need for a legally enforceable mechanism.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh for the petitioners argued that the existing regime created an asymmetry by prescribing penalties for doctors who accepted freebies and other benefits while lacking a corresponding statutory mechanism to penalise pharmaceutical companies that offered such inducements. He submitted that this gap allowed pharmaceutical companies to influence doctors' prescriptions and urged the Court either to direct the government to frame a statutory framework or lay down guidelines in the interim.

The petitioners also relied on the Supreme Court's 2022 judgment in Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, where the Court had observed that medical practitioners have a quasi-fiduciary relationship with patients and that benefits offered by pharmaceutical companies could influence prescriptions. The Court had referred to the practice of companies providing doctors with gifts, electronic goods and funding for foreign trips and medical conferences as creating a "publicly injurious cycle."

Tags:    
Case Title :  Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.Case Number :  W.P.(C) No. 323/2021