Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Declare AYUSH Doctors As 'Medical Practitioners' Under Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Ads) Act

The Supreme Court  issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking the reading down of key provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, on the ground that the law has become constitutionally obsolete and operates in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi considered the matter.

The petition challenges Sections 2(cc) and 3(d) of the Act, contending that they impose a blanket prohibition on medical advertisements, without distinguishing between misleading claims by quacks and bona fide dissemination of information by duly qualified and statutorily recognised practitioners, including those practising under AYUSH systems of medicine.

The petitioner has argued that while the Act was originally enacted to curb fraudulent and “magic remedy” advertisements in the 1950s, it has failed to evolve in line with constitutional jurisprudence, advancements in medical science, and the statutory recognition accorded to non-allopathic systems of medicine. It has been submitted that the impugned provisions treat qualified practitioners at par with quacks and suppress truthful medical information, thereby infringing Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The plea also assails the definition of “registered medical practitioner” under Section 2(cc) for excluding AYUSH practitioners, despite their recognition under central legislations. According to the petition, this exclusion is arbitrary, lacks any rational nexus with the object of the Act, and results in unreasonable restrictions on the right to practise a profession and the public's right to receive medical information.

It has further been contended that the Schedule to the Act, which lists diseases for which advertisements are prohibited, has not been revised since 1963, despite significant changes in diagnostics and treatment options. The petitioner has sought constitution of an expert committee to periodically review and update the Schedule in light of contemporary scientific developments.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and other respondents, including the Ministries of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare, Women and Child Development, and statutory medical commissions.  The petition was filed by Nitin Upadhyay, a law student. His father, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, represented him.

When the matter was taken up, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked, “He is your son....we thought he will get some gold medal etc, but he is filing PILs? Why don't you study now? Issue notice...only for your son...so that he studies well."

Case : NITIN UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1278/202