The Supreme Court has directed the Union to constitute a committee to examine pharma freebies to doctors and recommend how unethical drug-marketing practices should be regulated.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Union of India to constitute a committee to consider suggestions and representations on unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies, including the giving of freebies to doctors, and to give its recommendations to the Union, in a petition seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing. The Court listed the matter on 29 January for consideration of the Union’s compliance affidavit [Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Others v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union, and Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh appeared for the petitioners.
The petition
The writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 323 of 2021), filed by the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India, seeks a legally enforceable framework to curb inducements offered by pharmaceutical companies to doctors to prescribe their products. The Court had reserved its order on 8 September 2026, after the Solicitor General told the Bench that the Union would set up a three-member committee to examine whether a statutory framework is needed. He had said the committee would report within two months and that the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) would continue to apply in the meantime, relying on the Centre’s affidavit dated 17 August 2026.
What the petitioners argued
Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh questioned the need for yet another committee, pointing out that a 2022 affidavit of the Centre had already mentioned a high-level committee examining a legally enforceable mechanism. He argued that penalties exist for doctors who accept freebies, but no matching statutory mechanism penalises the companies that offer them, and urged the Court to direct a statutory framework or issue interim guidelines. The petitioners also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which described a “publicly injurious cycle” linking company gifts and funding to doctors’ practices.
The direction
The Bench directed the Union to constitute the committee and recorded its mandate in these words:
The committee will consider the suggestions and representations and give its recommendations to the Union.
The matter is directed to be listed on 29 January for consideration of the compliance affidavit to be filed by the Union.
Earlier in the proceedings, the Court had questioned whether the UCPMP 2024 carries adequate enforcement mechanisms and whether the government intends to give it statutory backing.
Why the order matters
Until now, pharma marketing in India has been policed largely through the UCPMP and through medical council rules that act on doctors who accept gifts or hospitality. The petitioners’ case is that this leaves the offering side without a statutory consequence. By directing the Union to constitute a committee that must hear suggestions and representations, the Court has put the question of a binding regime on a fixed track, with the Union’s compliance affidavit to be examined on 29 January.
The order does not itself create any new obligation on pharmaceutical companies or doctors, and it expresses no view on whether a statute is required. That question now rests with the committee’s recommendations and the Union’s response.
Case Title: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India and Others v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 323 of 2021]
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India; Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh for the petitioners