The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Union Ministries of Law, Health and AYUSH on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to declare AYUSH doctors as “Registered Medical Practitioners” under the law, on par with allopathic doctors.
The PIL also seeks the constitution of an expert committee to review and update the schedule of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, in line with present-day scientific developments.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions made by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, law student Nitin Upadhyay, and issued notices to the concerned ministries.
During the hearing, the CJI remarked in a lighter vein upon learning that the petitioner was the advocate’s son. “Is he your son?” the Chief Justice asked, to which Upadhyay replied in the affirmative. “We thought he would get some gold medal, but he is filing PILs now. Why don’t you study now?” the Bench observed, before issuing notice.
The plea seeks a declaration that AYUSH doctors fall within the definition of “registered medical practitioner” under Section 2(cc) of the 1954 Act. The law aims to regulate advertisements of drugs and prohibit claims of remedies possessing “magic qualities.”
Section 3(d) of the Act imposes a prohibition on advertisements relating to certain diseases and conditions. According to the plea, AYUSH practitioners and other non-allopathic registered medical professionals are excluded from the exception provided under Section 14 of the Act, resulting in a blanket ban on their advertisements—even when the information is truthful and scientifically supported.
Filed through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, the petition contends that the law, though enacted to protect the public from misleading advertisements, has become outdated and disproportionate. It argues that the complete ban restricts dissemination of genuine medical information and infringes upon the public’s right to information regarding diagnosis, prevention and treatment of serious diseases.
“The initial aim of the Act to curb harmful advertisements has devolved into a blanket prohibition on all genuine medical advertisements by non-allopathic doctors,” the plea stated.
The petitioner further argued that truthful, evidence-based and non-deceptive advertisements constitute legitimate communication to patients and consumers. The plea seeks directions to the Centre to constitute an expert committee to revise and update the schedule of the Act in accordance with contemporary scientific knowledge and medical practices.
