Today, On 13th January, The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Law, Health and AYUSH Ministries on a plea seeking recognition of AYUSH doctors as registered medical practitioners. The petition highlights urgent need for clarity amid evolving national healthcare practices.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today, issued notices to the Union Ministries of Law, Health and AYUSH, underscoring the significance and immediacy of the issue amid changing trends in medical practice.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed the urgency and relevance of the matter and issued such notice.
The bench took up the matter and sent notices to the Union Ministry of Law, Union Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of AYUSH.
The bench highlighted that the question needs urgent attention because it relates to the changing structure of healthcare and the role of alternative medical systems in India.
Earlier Yesterday, the Supreme Court requested responses from the Union Ministries of Law, Health, and Ayush regarding a public interest litigation (PIL) that aims to classify AYUSH doctors as ‘Registered Medical Practitioners’ under the law, similar to allopathic doctors.
The PIL also called for the formation of an expert committee to assess and update the schedule of a 1954 law, which regulates the advertising of drugs in certain circumstances, in light of current scientific advancements.
A bench acknowledging the arguments presented by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, who represents the petitioner, a law student and his son, Nitin Upadhyay had issued notices concerning the PIL.
The petition requests that AYUSH doctors be recognized under Section 2(cc) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, as ‘registered medical practitioners’. This Act is intended to regulate drug advertisements in specific cases and prohibits advertisements for certain remedies that are claimed to possess magical qualities.
AYUSH practitioners are enrolled with statutory regulatory bodies such as State AYUSH Medical Councils, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM), or the National Commission for Homoeopathy (NCH). Such enrolment confers recognised “Registered Medical Practitioner” status within their respective systems of medicine.
The plea asserted that,
“The Act was enacted to protect the public from false and misleading medical advertisements. However, Section 3(d) imposes a complete ban on advertisements concerning certain diseases and conditions,”
Section 3 of the Act deals with prohibiting advertisements of specific drugs for treating certain diseases and disorders. The petition argues that since AYUSH doctors and other genuine non-allopathic practitioners are excluded from the exceptions in Section 14 of the Act, “this blanket ban effectively stops their ability to advertise legitimate medications for serious ailments, leading to widespread public ignorance about available treatments.”
The plea, criticizes section 3(d) of the Act for imposing a “complete and blanket ban” on advertisements for certain diseases and conditions, failing to differentiate between misleading ads and truthful, scientifically supported, lawful information.
The petitioner argues that the contested provisions violate Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) by suppressing accurate medical information and imposing unreasonable restrictions on medical practitioners’ rights to practice their profession. Citing Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1951), the petitioner contends that the blanket prohibition under Section 3(d) does not meet the “tests of reasonableness and proportionality”.
Furthermore, the claim is made that the Act infringes Article 21 by denying citizens access to essential information needed to make informed healthcare decisions, which is vital for the right to health and living with dignity. The plea references Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, UT of Delhi (1981) to argue that legislation limiting medical awareness without adequate justification cannot be upheld.
Invoking Article 51A(h), the petitioner maintains that the ongoing enforcement of the DMRA hinders the development of a scientific mindset and the spirit of inquiry. The petition also cites Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) to underscore that fundamental duties are pertinent when evaluating the reasonableness of restrictions on fundamental rights.
The petitioner emphasizes that AYUSH systems are affordable, preventive, and widely utilized by many in the population. By silencing statutorily recognized AYUSH practitioners, the petitioner argues, public health is undermined, depriving citizens of lawful medical options.
Consequently, the petitioner seeks directions to amend Section 3(d) to allow legitimate medical advertisements by duly registered practitioners, including AYUSH professionals, or, alternatively, to declare it unconstitutional. Additionally, a request has been made to expand the definition of “registered medical practitioner” under Section 2(cc) and to establish an inclusive expert committee tasked with reviewing and updating the Schedule to the Act in accordance with contemporary scientific advancements and constitutional requirements.
It contends that the right to information regarding the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of serious, life threatening chronic diseases has been undermined by an overly broad prohibition on advertisements stemming from an “archaic law.”
The petition asserts,
“It is humbly submitted that the initial aim of the Act to impose an immediate ban on harmful advertisements has devolved into a blanket ban on all genuine medical advertisements by non-allopathic (AYUSH) doctors.”
The plea argued that truthful, scientifically substantiated, and non-deceptive advertisements regarding drugs and remedies serve as legitimate information dissemination to consumers and patients. It seeks a directive for the Centre to “constitute an ‘expert committee’ to review, revise, and update the schedule of the DMR Act in accordance with present-day scientific developments and evidence-based medical knowledge.”
The Court issued notices to the Union Ministries of Law, Health and AYUSH, emphasising the importance and urgency of the issue in the context of evolving medical practices.
Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 943/2021