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 liable

The 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 issued

Stressing 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 case they are swayed by the said advertisements," the Court stated. 

States To Comply With Previous Order On Action Taken On Misleading Ads

On July 30, 2024, the Court directed States/Union Territories for compliance of its earlier orders, which required that the states/UTs file affidavits detailing action taken by their State Licensing Authorities (in response to complaints as well as suo motu) to ensure that no misleading ads are issued by manufacturers of health products, food items, etc.

Today, the Court noted that certain states had still not complied with the July 30 Order and directed these states to report complaints by end of April 2025. 

The Court also considered the point raised by Amicus Shadan Farsat that the State of Himachal Pradesh is the hub of manufacturing of drugs and pharmaceutical products but so far no affidavit of compliance has been filed by the state.

It therefore directed the state of Himachal Pradesh to file affidavits of compliance with order dated 30th of July 2024 by April 2025.

"We direct registry to forward the copy of this order to the chief secretary of the state as well as Advocate on record representing the state of Himachal Pradesh in This petition." The Court added further. 

Arguments By The Parties 

Today, Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat submitted that under the DMR Act, three main routes available to tackle misleading advertisements are (1) Directly register an FIR as such an advertisement is a cognizable offence and (2) any gazetted officer can conduct a search and seize any misleading advertisement and then file an FIR as per S.8 of the DMR Act, (3) an officer authorised by State Government may scrutinise an alleged misleading advertisement as per Rule 3 of DMR Rules 1955 read with S.4 of the Act and then proceed to file an FIR. 

Farasat flagged that several states are only limiting their actions towards misleading advertisements to mere warnings and undertakings. He added, "So that is not a process and the court may specifically say that it is not permitted." 

Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj for the Union informed that a dashboard for display of actions against misleading advertisements is under progress. 

Considering the same, the bench directed the Union to "ensure that the dashboard is developed in such a manner that States can upload all the information regarding the actions taken under the act of 1954. We grant time of 3 months to Union of India to do so".

All the states and the Union of India are to report compliance with the directions issued above by the end of June 2025.

What does the DMR Act prohibit?

The Court noted in its order today that Section 3 of the Act prohibits the advertisements of drugs for

a) the procurement of miscarriage in women or prevention of conception in women; or

(b) the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of human beings for sexual pleasure; or

(c) the correction of menstrual disorder in women; or

(d) the cure related to diseases specified in the Schedule and the Rules whih include diseases like cancer, cataract, diabates, blood pressure, veneral diseases, kidney stones etc.

Section 4 prohibits misleading advertisements giving false impressions or false claims regarding the drugs. Section 5 prohibits advertisements of magic remedies.  Section 6 prohibits the import of objectionable advertisements.

Background

The current case originated from a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking regulation of medical advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The case evolved to include contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved, its MD Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev for violating a previous court undertaking against publishing misleading advertisements.

On May 7, 2024, the Supreme Court passed directions for comprehensive measures to curb misleading advertisements holding:

1. Advertisers and public figures endorsing products are equally accountable under the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines. Guideline 13 emphasized due diligence by endorsers.
2. Advertisers to submit self-declaration forms, as per the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, before airing advertisements. These forms must be uploaded to the Broadcast Seva Portal of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. A similar portal for press and print media was to be established within four weeks.

The Court has asserted that the fundamental right to health includes a consumer's right to know the quality of products. Advertisers were required to follow Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, ensuring advertisements did not offend decency or mislead consumers.

On July 30, 2024, the Court directed the Ministry of AYUSH, alongside other ministries, to take steps against misleading advertisements and non-compliance with related statutes. It proposed setting up a public dashboard for state-level complaint tracking and action.

On August 27, 2024, the Court stayed the Ministry of AYUSH notification dated July 1, 2024 omitting Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, that prohibits advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs for disease-related claims, as it contradicted earlier orders requiring adherence to Rule 170.

On January 15, 2025, the Court warned states and union territories that it would initiate contempt proceedings for failure to act against misleading advertisements and unlawful medical claims. It highlighted the lack of enforcement under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

On February 10, 2025, citing non-compliance, the Court summoned the Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir to appear virtually on March 7, 2025.

On February 24, 2025, the Court called for a mechanism to enable citizens to file complaints for violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. It indicated that it will issue comprehensive directions on this issue.

Further, while the Court commended Kerala for its efforts, and criticized Karnataka for not prosecuting misleading advertisements. The Court directed the state to use its law enforcement agencies to identify offenders.

On March 7, 2025, after Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat reported substantial progress, the Court excused the Chief Secretaries from further appearances.

Or March 17, 2025, Farasat submitted that all the states are largely non-compliant on the issue of imposing penalties under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

Contempt Proceedings and Apologies

Patanjali published misleading ads despite the Court's earlier orders. Apologies were subsequently published by Patanjali, Baba Ramdev, and Acharya Balkrishna, leading the Court to close contempt proceedings against them on August 13, 2024.

Dr. RV Asokan, IMA President, faced contempt proceedings for remarks critical of the Court. On August 27, 2024, the Court directed the submission of physical copies of apology advertisements published in various editions of The Hindu. Dissatisfied with their size and presentation, the Court sought further compliance. On January 15, 2025, the Court closed contempt proceedings, accepting an apology tendered by Dr. Asokan. 

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 645/2022

Case Title – Indian Medical Association v. Union of India