Plea in Supreme Court seeks review of ‘magic remedies’ law, inclusion of AYUSH doctors
Petitioner argues 1954 Act imposes blanket ban on medical advertising without accounting for modern science
ADVERTISEMENT
A petition has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Centre to review and update the schedule under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, arguing that the decades-old law no longer reflects present-day scientific understanding or medical practices.
The plea, filed by Nitin Upadhyay through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, calls for the constitution of an expert committee to reassess the diseases and conditions listed under the Act, which restricts advertising related to certain treatments and remedies claimed to have “magic” qualities.
Also read: NCLAT sets aside NCLT order in Culver Max insolvency case
The petitioner has also sought a declaration that AYUSH practitioners fall within the definition of “registered medical practitioners” under Section 2(cc) of the Act. According to the plea, the current interpretation excludes AYUSH doctors and other non-allopathic practitioners from the scope of lawful medical advertising, despite their formal registration and practice.
The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act was enacted to protect the public from false and misleading advertisements, particularly those making exaggerated or unscientific claims. However, the petition argues that Section 3(d) of the Act imposes a complete prohibition on advertising treatments for certain diseases, without distinguishing between deceptive promotions and accurate, evidence-based medical information.
It further contends that Section 14 of the Act, which provides exemptions for certain medical practitioners, does not adequately cover AYUSH doctors. As a result, the plea claims, practitioners are unable to inform the public about legitimate treatment options for serious or chronic ailments.
The petitioner argues that such restrictions prevent patients from accessing reliable information on diagnosis, prevention, and treatment, particularly in cases involving life-threatening diseases.
According to the plea, the blanket ban under Section 3(d) has the effect of overriding the public’s right to access truthful medical information, and fails to account for advances in scientific research and evidence-based healthcare since the law was enacted more than seven decades ago.
The petition urges the Centre to periodically revise the schedule under the Act through an expert-driven process, ensuring that regulations balance consumer protection with the dissemination of lawful and scientifically sound medical information in a modern healthcare ecosystem.
