SC Mandates States: 2-Month Deadline for Grievance Mechanism on Misleading Medical Ads - 2025-03-27

SC Mandates States: 2-Month Deadline for Grievance Mechanism on Misleading Medical Ads

New Delhi, [Current Date] – In a significant move to protect public health, the Supreme Court of India has issued a stern directive to all states and union territories, mandating the establishment of robust grievance redressal mechanisms within two months to combat the menace of misleading medical advertisements. The apex court, in its Wednesday order, emphasized the urgent need for stricter enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, highlighting the potential for "great harm to society" caused by deceptive health product promotions.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong concern over the continued flouting of the 74-year-old legislation, noting its lack of effective implementation despite its crucial role in safeguarding citizens from false and misleading claims in the medical and health sector. The Court's order came during the hearing of a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) concerning misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved, which allegedly disparaged modern medicine.

Grievance Redressal Mechanism: A Two-Month Ultimatum

Recognizing the critical need for accessible and responsive systems, the Supreme Court has set a firm two-month deadline for state governments and union territories to create comprehensive grievance redressal mechanisms. These mechanisms are intended to empower the public to lodge complaints against advertisements that violate the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

“Though the act is more than 74 years old, there is no implementation in letter and spirit,” the bench observed, underscoring the legislative intent behind the 1954 Act which remains largely unfulfilled. To rectify this, the Court has specifically instructed states to establish user-friendly channels for complaint submission. “State has to come up with a grievance redressal mechanism ... It may provide for taking complaints either on a toll-free number or by email,” the order stated, providing flexibility for states to adapt the mechanism to their local context while ensuring accessibility for all citizens.

The Court further directed that these mechanisms should be widely publicized to ensure public awareness and encourage active participation in reporting misleading advertisements. This proactive approach is aimed at fostering a culture of vigilance and accountability in the advertising of medicinal and health-related products.

Swift Action and Criminal Prosecution

Beyond establishing the grievance mechanism, the Supreme Court has mandated a process for swift action upon receiving complaints. The Court directed that complaints must be "immediately forwarded to the concerned officers" for prompt investigation and action. Crucially, the order emphasizes that if a violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act is found, the designated officer is obligated to initiate criminal proceedings.

“If the officer finds that there is a contravention, he shall lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police station so that FIR is registered and criminal law is set in motion,” the Court asserted, underscoring the seriousness with which violations of the Act must be treated. This directive signals a clear intent to move beyond mere warnings and to enforce the law through criminal prosecution where warranted, thereby deterring misleading advertising practices.

Sensitization and Public Awareness Initiatives

Recognizing that effective enforcement requires not only robust mechanisms but also public awareness and police sensitization, the Supreme Court has issued further directions on these fronts. The Court has called upon state legal services authorities to conduct comprehensive awareness programs to educate the public about the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954. These programs are intended to inform citizens about their rights and empower them to identify and report misleading advertisements effectively. The focus is also on highlighting the potential health risks associated with relying on deceptive advertising claims.

Furthermore, the Court has directed states to "sensitise the police machinery" on the implementation of the Act. This is crucial to ensure that law enforcement agencies are well-versed in the provisions of the Act and equipped to handle complaints effectively, including the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) and the initiation of criminal investigations as directed by the Court.

Dashboard Development and Officer Appointments

Addressing infrastructural gaps, the Supreme Court has taken note of the ongoing development of a centralized dashboard intended to receive complaints against misleading advertisements at the national level. While acknowledging that this dashboard is "not completely developed," the Court has directed the Union of India to expedite its completion within three months. The dashboard is envisioned as a platform where states can record and track information related to complaints and actions taken.

Moreover, the Court has addressed the issue of insufficient personnel to enforce the Act. It has directed states and union territories to ensure the appointment of an adequate number of "gazetted officers" authorized to exercise powers under Section 8 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, which includes powers of search and seizure. The Court has mandated that these appointments be made within one month, indicating the urgency it attaches to strengthening the enforcement capacity at the state level.

Context: The Patanjali Case and Broader Concerns

The Supreme Court's directives come in the backdrop of a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved. The IMA's petition, filed in 2022, raised concerns about a smear campaign allegedly conducted by Patanjali and yoga guru Ramdev against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine. The Court has been examining the broader issue of misleading medical advertisements in this context, with Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.

It is also noteworthy that on May 7, 2024, the Supreme Court had already issued an interim order directing that advertisers must submit a self-declaration, similar to the requirements under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, before any advertisement is released. This earlier order, coupled with the current directives, signals a consistent and robust approach by the apex court to curb misleading advertising in the health sector.

Compliance and Future Outlook

The Supreme Court has set a clear timeline for compliance, directing both state governments, union territories, and the Union of India to report on their compliance measures by the end of June 2025. This deadline underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring that its directives are not merely advisory but are actively implemented and enforced.

The implications of these orders are significant. Legal professionals specializing in advertising law, consumer protection, and public health will need to be keenly aware of these developments. Advertisers of medical and health products will face increased scrutiny and will need to ensure their advertisements are fully compliant with the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and related regulations. State governments will need to allocate resources and develop effective mechanisms to meet the Court's directives within the stipulated timeframe.

The Supreme Court’s proactive stance signals a renewed focus on protecting consumers from misleading health claims and ensuring that the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 is implemented in its true "letter and spirit." The coming months will be crucial in observing the responsiveness of states and the effectiveness of the newly mandated grievance redressal mechanisms in curbing the proliferation of misleading medical advertisements and safeguarding public health.