Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Implementing Drugs and Magic Remedies Act for Misleading Medical Ads

The Supreme Court of India, in the ongoing case concerning misleading medical advertisements, has underscored the importance of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act). The Court emphasized the need for a mechanism that allows citizens to file complaints against such advertisements, which often violate public health guidelines. The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan further directed the authorities to create a dedicated grievance redressal system to handle these complaints effectively.

Key Highlights

• Focus on Establishing Enforcement Machinery
  The Court noted that while the DMR Act is of vital importance, its implementation across states and union territories remains inconsistent. Justice Oka remarked that a proper mechanism must be established to facilitate the filing of complaints by citizens, suggesting dedicated phone lines or similar systems.

• Amicus Curiae's Role in Implementation
  The Court directed Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, who is acting as Amicus Curiae in the case, to submit a detailed note on how the provisions of the DMR Act are being implemented across various states and union territories, with particular attention to whether enforcement machinery is in place.

• State Compliance with Previous Directions
  The Supreme Court reviewed compliance by states and union territories with its earlier directives related to the enforcement of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which governs the advertisement of drugs and medicines.

Provisions of the DMR Act

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 is a crucial law aimed at prohibiting misleading advertisements related to drugs and remedies. The key provisions include:

• Section 3: Prohibits advertisements that claim drugs can cure diseases or conditions which they cannot.
• Section 4: Prohibits the advertisement of drugs that mislead people into believing they have magic properties to cure various ailments.
• Section 5: Imposes penalties for violating the provisions of the Act, including fines and imprisonment.

State Compliance and Enforcement Gaps

The Court’s scrutiny of state compliance revealed several inconsistencies:

• Jharkhand's Failure to Report Ads
  Jharkhand’s counsel stated that no manufacturer had applied for permission under Rule 170 since 2018. However, the Court pointed out that the state had not confirmed whether any misleading advertisements were being published without the proper permissions, urging a better affidavit on the matter.

• Karnataka's Inaction
  Karnataka reported no prosecutions for 25 cases of misleading ads due to lack of "material particulars" like license numbers. The Court, however, criticized this as an excuse, pointing out that state machinery such as police and cyber cells could easily trace the sources of these ads.

• Kerala's Proper Implementation
  Kerala was found to be properly enforcing Rule 170, and no further directions were deemed necessary.

• Punjab and Madhya Pradesh's Pending Affidavits
  The Court decided to consider the affidavits from Punjab and Madhya Pradesh on the next date. Punjab’s recent affidavit was unavailable for review, while Madhya Pradesh was given time to submit its report.

• Pondicherry's Delayed Response
  Initially, the Court issued a notice to Pondicherry’s Chief Secretary for non-compliance. However, the Union Territory's counsel appeared and was granted more time to submit an affidavit.

• Andhra Pradesh's Continued Non-Compliance
  The Court expressed displeasure at Andhra Pradesh’s failure to comply with its earlier order, noting that despite the summons issued on February 10, the state had not submitted its affidavit by the deadline. Justice Oka remarked that such delays reflected irresponsibility on the part of the state.

Supreme Court's Directives

• Setting up of Grievance Redressal Mechanism
  The Court emphasized that a citizen-friendly grievance redressal system needs to be set up under the DMR Act. This could include a dedicated phone line for complaints, ensuring citizens have a clear path to report misleading ads.

• Comprehensive Directions to States
  The Court is set to issue comprehensive directions to states and union territories on March 7, 2025, ensuring better implementation of the Act and stronger action against violators.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s remarks highlight the need for robust implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act to combat the growing issue of misleading medical advertisements in India. By stressing the creation of a complaint mechanism and ensuring accountability from states, the Court is aiming to protect public health and enforce consumer rights effectively. The upcoming directions will likely serve as a significant step toward improving enforcement across the country.

Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2022