Freebies To Doctors : Supreme Court Asks Union To Form Committee To Recommend Regulations On Pharma Marketing Practices

    • Freebies To Doctors : Supreme Court Asks Union To Form Committee To Recommend Regulations On Pharma Marketing Practices

    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 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."

    Verdict

    The Supreme Court observed that the material before it indicated that the existing regulatory framework had "not proved entirely effective" in preventing and curbing unethical practices in the pharmaceutical sector.

    The Court stressed that the effectiveness of a regulatory framework cannot be judged merely by the existence of prescribed norms, but also by their implementation and enforcement.

    "In a sector which has a direct bearing upon the health and well-being of citizens, the efficacy of the regulatory framework cannot be assessed merely by the existence of prescribed norms; it must also be judged by their efficacy, implementation and enforcement," the Court observed.

    At the same time, the Court emphasised the principle of separation of powers and observed that the choice of the appropriate statutory framework, the extent of regulatory oversight and the mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement primarily involved legislative and executive policy.

    The Court said that the Union Government and its authorities were institutionally better equipped to assess competing considerations and formulate regulatory policy. It therefore held that the Court could not substitute its own policy determination for that of the executive, but had an obligation to ensure that the eventual regulatory framework was consistent with constitutional guarantees and the larger public interest.

    The Court consequently said that its role at this stage was not to enter the domain of policy formulation but to facilitate a meaningful and effective consultative process, ensuring that the concerns and suggestions placed before it received due and objective consideration.

    As per the directions issued today, the committee must undertake a holistic examination of all issues relating to unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices, including the adequacy of the existing statutory and regulatory framework and the efficacy of existing monitoring, oversight and enforcement mechanisms.

    The committee to also consider the material already placed before the Court by the petitioners and intervenors and give them, as well as other concerned stakeholders, an opportunity to submit their views, suggestions and concerns. It may also seek assistance from technical, professional and domain experts or institutions.

    The committee has been directed to complete the exercise within two months from the date of its first meeting and submit its recommendations to the Union Government. The Centre must consider the recommendations and take an appropriate and reasoned decision at the earliest, keeping in view Article 21 and the public interest in ensuring ethical, transparent and accountable pharmaceutical marketing practices, the Court said.

    The Court directed the Union Government to file a compliance affidavit setting out the constitution of the committee, the date of its first meeting, details of the consultative process, its recommendations and the decision taken by the government.

    The matter has been listed on January 29, 2027, for consideration of the compliance affidavit.

    Tags
    Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.Supreme CourtJustice Vikram NathJustice Sandeep MehtaUniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing PracticesUCPMP 2024pharmaceutical marketing practicespharmaceutical companiesmedical practitionerspharmaceutical freebies
    Amisha Shrivastava

    Amisha Shrivastava is a Senior Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering the Supreme Court of India. She can be reached at amisha@livelaw.in

    LiveLaw Biz

    LiveLaw WhatsApp Channel
    Next Story