Indian Medical Association v. Union of India

,

Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 – Implementation – Prohibition of Misleading Advertisements – Public Health Protection:

Supreme Court addressed non-implementation of the 1954 Act and 1955 Rules, which prohibit objectionable advertisements of drugs and magic remedies.

Held

States/Union Territories directed to appoint Gazetted Officers under Section 8(1) and authorized officers under Rule 3 within one month; establish grievance redressal mechanisms within two months; sensitize police for enforcement; and ensure complaints lead to seizure and criminal action under Section 7. Union of India to develop a dashboard within three months to track actions. National Legal Services Authority to educate public on risks of prohibited advertisements. Non-compliant states to report compliance by April 30, 2025.

Case listed for May 14, 2025.

Case Information

  • Case Name: Indian Medical Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645/2022
  • Date of Order: March 26, 2025
  • Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
  • Counsel:
    • Amicus Curiae: Mr. Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocate
    • Petitioners: Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Mr. Priyanshu Tyagi, Mr. Amarjeet Singh (AOR), Mr. Rishav Rai
    • Respondents (Union of India): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker (AOR), and others
    • Other Advocates: Various advocates representing states and intervenors (e.g., Mr. Balbir Singh, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, etc.)

Procedural History

Facts

  • The petition focuses on the lack of effective implementation of the 1954 Act, which aims to prohibit objectionable advertisements of drugs and magic remedies that can harm society.
  • The 1954 Act defines “advertisement” broadly, covering notices, circulars, labels, wrappers, documents, and oral or multimedia announcements.
  • Section 3 prohibits advertisements of drugs for specific purposes (e.g., miscarriage, sexual pleasure, menstrual disorders, or diseases listed in the Schedule).
  • Section 4 prohibits misleading advertisements that give false impressions or claims about drugs.
  • Section 5 prohibits advertisements of magic remedies for certain diseases.
  • Section 8 empowers authorized Gazetted Officers to seize contravening advertisements, and Section 7 imposes penalties for violations, with offenses being cognizable under Section 9A.
  • The court noted that despite the Act being over 70 years old, its provisions have not been implemented in letter and spirit, necessitating action by state governments and legal authorities.

Issues

  1. Whether the provisions of the 1954 Act and 1955 Rules are being effectively implemented to curb objectionable advertisements.
  2. What measures are required to ensure compliance by states and Union Territories with the 1954 Act.
  3. How to address non-compliance by certain states with the court’s earlier order dated July 30, 2024.

Holding

The Supreme Court issued several directions to ensure the implementation of the 1954 Act and address the issues of objectionable advertisements:

  1. Appointment of Officers: States and Union Territories must appoint adequate Gazetted Officers under Section 8(1) of the 1954 Act and authorized officers under Rule 3 of the 1955 Rules within one month (by April 26, 2025).
  2. Police Sensitization: States must sensitize police through training institutes about the importance of the 1954 Act and its enforcement.
  3. Grievance Redressal Mechanism: States must establish a grievance redressal mechanism (via toll-free number or email) within two months (by May 26, 2025) to allow public complaints about prohibited advertisements, with adequate publicity.
  4. Action on Complaints: Complaints received must be forwarded to officers authorized under Section 8(1), who shall seize advertisements and initiate criminal proceedings by lodging FIRs under Section 7 if violations are found.
  5. Role of Legal Services Authorities: The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and State/District Legal Services Authorities are directed to educate the public about the 1954 Act and the risks of prohibited advertisements.
  6. Dashboard Development: The Union of India must develop a dashboard within three months (by June 26, 2025) to track complaints and actions taken under the 1954 Act, as per the July 30, 2024 order.
  7. Compliance Reporting: All states and the Union of India must report compliance by June 30, 2025, with copies sent to the Amicus Curiae and petitioners’ counsel.
  8. Non-Compliant States: Specific states (e.g., Andaman & Nicobar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, etc.) must report compliance with the July 30, 2024 order by April 30, 2025. Himachal Pradesh was initially directed to file a compliance affidavit, but this was recalled after counsel confirmed prior compliance.
  9. Next Hearing: The case is listed for further consideration of compliance on May 14, 2025, at 12:00 noon.

Reasoning

  • The court emphasized the broad definition of “advertisement” in the 1954 Act, which includes all forms of communication, making the prohibition extensive.
  • The lack of implementation of the 1954 Act, despite its long existence, was highlighted as a significant concern, necessitating proactive measures by states and the Union.
  • The court underscored the societal harm caused by misleading and prohibited advertisements, justifying the need for public education, grievance mechanisms, and strict enforcement.
  • The cognizable nature of offenses under Section 7 mandates police action (FIR registration) upon receiving complaints, aligning with Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
  • The involvement of Legal Services Authorities was deemed essential to raise awareness and protect the public from harmful advertisements.
  • The dashboard requirement aims to enhance transparency and coordination among states in tracking complaints and enforcement actions.

Significance

  • The order reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring the enforcement of public health laws, particularly those protecting against misleading medical advertisements.
  • It establishes a framework for state-level accountability, public grievance redressal, and inter-agency coordination (police, legal services, and health authorities).
  • The directive to involve NALSA highlights the importance of public education in combating health-related misinformation.
  • The case sets a precedent for addressing systemic non-compliance with long-standing legislation through court-monitored mechanisms.
, , , , , , , , , ,