In a groundbreaking ruling on March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a thunderous wake-up call to state governments, issuing a slew of directives to resurrect the long-neglected Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act).
Decrying the “abysmal” enforcement of the 70-year-old legislation, the Court demanded robust action to shield the public from deceptive medical advertisements peddling false cures and magic remedies.
A formidable bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, responding to a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), pulled no punches.
“The 1954 Act is more than 70 years old. Unfortunately, there is no implementation in its letter and spirit,” the Court lamented, underscoring the urgent need for state machinery to enforce the law’s intent: protecting society from harmful, misleading ads.
Now Open: Pan-India Registration for Fraud Investigators!
A Six-Point Masterplan to Curb Quackery
The Court rolled out a comprehensive action plan, leaving no stone unturned:
- Appointing Enforcers: States must appoint an “adequate number” of gazetted officers under Section 8 of the DMR Act within one month—by April 26, 2025—to conduct searches, seizures, and initiate action against violators. Officers under Rule 3 of the 1955 Drugs and Magic Remedies Rules must also be named within the same deadline.
- Police Sensitization: State police forces are to be trained through academies to enforce the Act’s provisions, ensuring law enforcement is primed to tackle offenders.
- Grievance Redressal: States have two months—until May 26, 2025—to establish accessible complaint mechanisms, including toll-free numbers and email portals, for the public to report objectionable ads. These must be widely publicized at regular intervals.
- Swift Action: Complaints received via these channels or otherwise must be promptly forwarded to Section 8 officers. If violations are confirmed, officers are to trigger criminal proceedings by filing complaints with police stations for First Information Reports (FIRs).
- Public Awareness: The Court directed its registry to rope in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to launch sensitization drives through legal aid camps. These programs will educate the masses about the Act and warn of the health risks posed by falling for prohibited ads.
- Tracking Compliance: States flouting earlier orders—like the July 30, 2024, directive to file affidavits on actions taken—must report progress by April 30, 2025. The Union of India has until June 26, 2025, to launch a dashboard showcasing state-level enforcement efforts.
Publishers and Ad Designers in the Crosshairs
The Court clarified that the DMR Act’s definition of “advertisement” is expansive, covering not just print and TV but also circulars, labels, wrappers, oral announcements, and even light-and-sound displays.
Sections 3, 4, and 5—banning ads for miscarriage drugs, sexual enhancement, menstrual fixes, and cures for diseases like cancer and diabetes—apply to both those who design and publish such content. “Liability isn’t limited to advertisers; creators and broadcasters are equally accountable,” the bench warned.
What the DMR Act Prohibits
The Court spotlighted the Act’s core bans:
- Section 3: Ads for drugs claiming to procure miscarriage, prevent conception, boost sexual pleasure, fix menstrual disorders, or cure scheduled diseases (e.g., cancer, cataracts, diabetes, kidney stones).
- Section 4: Misleading ads with false claims or impressions about drugs.
- Section 5: Promotions of “magic remedies” promising miraculous results.
- Section 6: Importing objectionable ads into India.
The bench emphasized the Act’s original intent, quoting its statement of objectives: “Such advertisements can cause great harm to society… It is necessary to stop undesirable advertisements and save the ignorant masses.”
Empanelment for Speakers, Trainers, and Cyber Security Experts Opens at Future Crime Research Foundation
States on Notice, Himachal Under Scrutiny
The Court singled out Himachal Pradesh—a hub for drug manufacturing—for failing to file compliance affidavits as ordered on July 30, 2024. It directed the state’s Chief Secretary and Advocate on Record to submit details by April 30, 2025, with the registry tasked to ensure delivery of the order. Other non-compliant states were also given until June 2025 to report progress.
Arguments That Shaped the Ruling
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that the DMR Act offers three enforcement routes: direct FIRs for cognizable offenses, searches and seizures by gazetted officers under Section 8, and scrutiny by state-authorized officers under Rule 3.
He criticized states for issuing mere warnings instead of prosecuting offenders, urging the Court to outlaw such leniency. Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj, representing the Union, revealed a dashboard for tracking actions is in the works, prompting the Court to set a three-month deadline for its completion.
A Saga Rooted in Patanjali’s Missteps
The case traces back to a 2022 IMA petition targeting Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.’s medical ads. It ballooned into contempt proceedings against Patanjali, MD Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev for flouting a court undertaking against misleading promotions. After apologies were published, contempt was closed on August 13, 2024. Meanwhile, IMA President Dr. RV Asokan faced contempt for criticizing the Court but secured closure on January 15, 2025, after a revised apology.
Milestones Leading to March 26
- May 7, 2024: Advertisers and endorsers held accountable under CCPA guidelines; self-declaration forms mandated for ads.
- July 30, 2024: States ordered to detail actions against misleading ads; AYUSH Ministry tasked with enforcement.
- August 27, 2024: AYUSH’s bid to scrap Rule 170 (banning Ayurvedic drug ads) stayed.
- January 15, 2025: States warned of contempt for inaction.
- February 24, 2025: Court pushed for a public complaint mechanism.
- March 7, 2025: Chief Secretaries excused after progress reports.
A Wake-Up Call for Enforcement
From praising Kerala’s efforts to slamming Karnataka’s inaction, the Court has kept the pressure on. With deadlines looming and a dashboard on the horizon, this ruling marks a seismic shift in the fight against quackery. “The fundamental right to health includes knowing the truth about products,” the Court reiterated, signaling that misleading ads have met their match.
Case Details: W.P.(C) No. 645/2022, Indian Medical Association v. Union of India