The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over the States' inaction in addressing misleading medical advertisements.
The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, underscored the need for strict enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, to curb false and unverified medical claims that could mislead the public.
The Court stressed that States must take proactive measures to enforce the law rather than passively relying on complaints. It specifically questioned the State of Jharkhand, which claimed that no advertisements under Rule 170 of the Act had been published.
The Bench pointed out that while Jharkhand asserted that no manufacturer had applied for permission under Rule 170, it failed to clarify whether such advertisements were being circulated.
"It is the state's duty to ascertain whether any advertisements covered under sub-rules 2 and 3 of Rule 170 are being published," the Court stated.
The Court also reprimanded Karnataka for failing to take proactive steps in identifying violators, noting that the State had its own police machinery and cyber cells, making it "very easy" to track the sources of misleading advertisements.
Karnataka was directed to identify violators by name and address and submit an affidavit.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat informed the Court that Kerala had made significant progress in implementation, while Punjab had filed a fresh affidavit that required further review. The Court deferred consideration of Madhya Pradesh's affidavit, which was recently submitted.
Initially, the Chief Secretary of Puducherry was issued a notice for not filing an affidavit, but the direction was withdrawn after the Union Territory’s counsel clarified that it had been submitted.
Regarding Andhra Pradesh, the Bench noted that despite a summoning order issued on February 10, the State had yet to file its affidavit. When the State's counsel requested the retraction of the Court’s observations on non-compliance, the Bench refused, stating that such requests were unfair and must be recorded.
"We could have shown magnanimity provided compliance was reported... If there was some sort of responsibility, the officer would have filed the affidavit. Requests like these on behalf of States are unfair. They will be recorded and rejected", the Court stated.
The Court will now examine the compliance affidavits submitted by the States and Union Territories to evaluate the effectiveness of regulatory measures in curbing misleading medical advertisements and determine any additional steps needed for stricter enforcement of the law.
Additionally, the Amicus Curiae has been directed to submit a detailed note outlining the implementation framework, which will assist the Bench in formulating further directives.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy