The Supreme Court has ordered the Indian government to create a committee to propose new laws that would stop pharmaceutical companies from offering freebies to doctors. A bench led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the panel to review existing concerns and submit recommendations to the Union government. The court will next hear the case on January 29, 2027, to assess compliance with the directive.
The plea, filed by the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Association of India and others, argued that current rules fail to hold pharma companies accountable for unethical marketing tactics. While doctors face penalties under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 for accepting gifts, travel, or monetary benefits, no equivalent enforcement exists for the companies offering them.
The petitioners alleged that many companies, under the guise of “sales promotion”, routinely offer benefits-including sponsored foreign trips, gifts, hospitality, and perks-to influence prescriptions and boost sales. The Apex Court had said that procedures under the government’s UCPMP 2024 must be robust enough to ensure that “every person or the consumer who is cheated should be having access and proper remedy.”
The government had earlier told the court it would set up a three-member panel to study whether statutory regulations were needed. The committee would submit its report within two months, that will be placed before the court for approval. However, petitioners questioned why a new panel was necessary, noting that the government had previously acknowledged the need for enforceable rules as early as 2022.
During hearings, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cited inter-departmental discussions involving the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Department of Health and Family Welfare, and Department of Legal Affairs. He argued that while doctors face disciplinary action for accepting freebies, no parallel system exists to penalize the companies providing them.
In 2024, the Supreme Court had expressed frustration over the weak enforcement of the UCPMP, emphasizing that the framework must ensure consumers have access to remedies. The court had also questioned why the current code still lacks a straightforward way for patients to file complaints against unethical marketing.
The case, originally filed in March 2022, seeks either a binding law to regulate pharma marketing or stronger interim measures until such legislation is passed. Petitioners argued that without statutory oversight, unchecked incentives would continue to distort medical decision-making.
Leave a Reply