The Supreme Court has issued notice on a PIL challenging the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954, seeking recognition of AYUSH doctors as medical practitioners and reform of outdated medical advertising laws in India.
The Supreme Court of India has issued notice on an important public interest litigation (PIL) challenging certain provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The petition argues that the law has become outdated, constitutionally obsolete, and operates in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner in today’s medical and legal environment. The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Table of contents [Show]
The petition has been filed by Nitin Upadhyay, a law student. He is being represented by his father, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. The petition challenges Sections 2(cc) and 3(d) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954.
According to the petitioner, these provisions impose a blanket ban on medical advertisements without making any distinction between misleading and fraudulent claims made by quacks and genuine, factual information shared by duly qualified and statutorily recognised medical practitioners, including those practising under AYUSH systems of medicine. The plea argues that the law treats qualified doctors and quacks at the same level, which is unfair and unconstitutional.
The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act was enacted in the 1950s with the objective of curbing false, misleading, and fraudulent advertisements related to so-called magic cures and miracle treatments. However, the petitioner argues that the law has not evolved with time. Medical science has advanced significantly, and several non-allopathic systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy are now statutorily recognised under central laws. Despite this, the Act still operates with an outdated framework.
One of the key challenges is to the definition of “registered medical practitioner” under Section 2(cc) of the Act. The petition points out that AYUSH practitioners are recognised under central legislations, yet they are excluded from the definition under this Act. This exclusion is said to be arbitrary and to have no rational connection with the object of the law. According to the petitioner, this results in unreasonable restrictions on the right of doctors to practise their profession and on the right of the public to receive truthful medical information.
The petition argues that the impugned provisions violate Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is claimed that the law suppresses even truthful and educational medical information and unfairly equates qualified practitioners with fraudsters, thereby imposing disproportionate restrictions on professional freedom and public access to health information.
Another important issue raised is regarding the Schedule of the Act, which lists diseases for which advertisements are prohibited. The petitioner points out that this Schedule has not been updated since 1963, even though medical diagnostics and treatment options have changed drastically over the decades. Many conditions listed are now better understood and more effectively treatable. The petition therefore seeks the constitution of an expert committee to periodically review and update this Schedule in line with modern scientific developments.
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union of India and to various concerned authorities, including the Ministries of AYUSH, Health and Family Welfare, Women and Child Development, as well as the statutory medical commissions and other respondents. The matter will now be examined in detail by the Court.
This case has the potential to reshape how medical advertising is regulated in India and to clarify the legal position of AYUSH doctors under this law. It also raises larger questions about how outdated laws should be updated to match modern medical science, constitutional values, and the evolving healthcare system in the country.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter could have far-reaching consequences for medical regulation, patient awareness, and the legal recognition of different systems of medicine in India. It brings into focus the urgent need to balance protection of the public from misinformation with the right of qualified doctors to share legitimate and truthful medical information.
Rajasthan High Court enhances compensation to ₹78 lakh in a 2015 accident death of a final year MBBS student. Court fixed ₹50,000 notional income recognising the future earning potential of a young doctor and rejecting the argument that a student had no income. A significant judgment in motor accident compensation law.
A Chennai doctor earning nearly ₹7 lakh per month is at the centre of a major legal debate after a corporate hospital moved court claiming about ₹42 lakh over notice period dues when he joined another hospital. During the hearing, the Madras HC strongly questioned non compete and non solicitation clauses in doctor contracts, calling them unlawful and raising concerns about growing corporatisation.
A liposuction death in Delhi has reached the High Court, exposing delays by medical regulators and raising serious questions about safety in cosmetic surgery. The court has directed the NMC to conclude the long pending inquiry within six months. The case highlights accountability gaps, emergency preparedness and standards of care in aesthetic practice.
