Misleading Medical Ads | Supreme Court Directs States To Appoint Officers To Enforce Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 26) passed a slew of directions to state governments for the effective implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act), which prohibits the publication of misleading advertisements regarding medical cures.The Court lamented the poor implementation of the Act, which was enacted seventy years ago."The 1954 act is more than 70 years old. Unfortunately, there is no implementation in its letter and spirit. It is necessary for the state governments to create machinery for implementation of the 1954 Act."The State Governments were directed to appoint gazetted officers who are authorised to exercise powers under Section 8 of the DMR Act for search, seizure etc. Directions were also issued to set up grievance redressal mechanisms where the general public can lodge complaints against such advertisements. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions in a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association.Previously, the Court emphasised that a mechanism is needed under the Drugs And Magic Remedies (Objectional Advertisements) Act to enable citizens to file a complaint, and said that it will pass directions for implementing the Act.The Court in its order made specific reference to the statement of objectives of the DMR Act, it noted "It is necessary to make a reference to the introductory part of the statement of objects and reasons of the 1954 act. Basically what the legislature has noted is that such advertisements can cause great harm to the society and therefore it is necessary to stop such undesirable advertisements and to save the ignorant masses." "The basic object is to ensure that objectionable advertisements of drugs and magic remedies are not published," it added. Publishers and designers of advertisements also liableThe bench also observed that the meaning of advertisement under S.2 of the Act will include in its ambit advertisements in media, television, any visual stimulation, oral announcements and light and sound representation. The "advertisement" is not restricted to the advertisement in printed media as well as on television and other media. It goes to the extent of covering even a circular, label, wrapper, or any document or any announcement made orally or by means of producing and orally or by means of producing and transmitting light sound and smoke.Referring to the Provisions under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, which deal with express prohibition on misleading advertisements, the Court observed that the said provisions "will apply to those who design advertisements and those who publish advertisements which are prohibited."The Court held that despite being such old legislation, the DMR Act has not been adequately implemented. : Directions issuedStressing the need to have a grievance redressal mechanism in all states against such misleading advertisements, the Court issued the following key directions : (1) The States will ensure that an adequate number of gazetted officers authorised under Section 8 of the Act are appointed within one month from today. Officers or persons authorised referred to in rule 3 of the 1955 rules are also to be appointed within one month; (2)We direct the states to sensitize the police machinery through the police training academy in the state on implementation of the provisions of 1954 act;(3) The State Governments shall create grievance redressal mechanisms so that members of the public can lodge complaints about the objectionable advertisements prohibited under the act; (4) The grievance mechanism may provide for making complaints either on a toll-free number or by email. We direct the States Governments to create proper grievance redressal mechanisms within a period of 2 months from today and give adequate publicity to the availability at frequent intervals; (5) As soon as complaints are received through the grievance redressal mechanism or otherwise, the same shall be immediately forwarded to the concerned officer authorised under section 8(1) to take action under the said provision. If the officer finds that there is a contravention of the 1954 Act he will set the criminal law in motion by lodging a complaint with the police station so that first information reports can be registered; (6) We direct registry to forward copy of this order to the national legal services authority so that sensitization programs can be undertaken in the camps held by the national authority as well as the state and district authorities sensitizing the members of the public about the provisions of the 1954 act and more importantly the harm which can be cause to them in case relying upon advertisements they take recourse to consuming the drugs or to go for magic remedies advertised under the prohibited advertisements."It is also necessary that the legal services authorities educate masses about the provisions of 1954 and warn them of the harmful effects on their health in...

Misleading Medical Ads | Supreme Court Directs States To Appoint Officers To Enforce Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act

Amisha Shrivastava & Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava & Anmol Kaur Bawa

Misleading Medical Ads | Supreme Court Directs States To Appoint Officers To Enforce Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act

Amisha Shrivastava & Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava & Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers