The Supreme Court has asked all states and union territories to get moving on something that’s long been needed—setting up proper systems where people can complain about misleading medical advertisements.
A Bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka on March 26 directed that states must create a grievance redressal mechanism within two months, and also make sure people are actually aware such a thing exists. Frequent publicity, the court said, is essential so the public knows where to go when they spot fishy medical claims.
Misleading ads related to medicine or treatment aren’t just a nuisance—they could, according to the court, “cause great harm to society.” Think about it: someone skips proper treatment because they saw a flashy ad promising miracle cures. That’s the kind of scenario the court is worried about.
The directive refers to the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. This Act is meant to crack down on advertisements that promote supposed cures for serious illnesses or claim magical results without any scientific basis. The court now wants state governments to take it seriously and put some machinery in place to enforce it.
It didn’t stop with just the grievance cells. The Bench also told state governments to ensure that their police forces are well aware of the Act’s provisions. Without enforcement, the law’s just paper, after all. So the idea is to sensitise officers so they actually act when such ads surface.
This hearing follows a direction already issued by the Supreme Court on May 7, 2024, where it had asked that advertisers must submit a self-declaration before airing or publishing medical-related ads—something similar to what’s done under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
The bigger conversation started with a 2022 petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA). The association flagged a campaign they claimed was run by Patanjali and yoga guru Ramdev, criticising the Covid vaccination drive and modern medical practices. The IMA felt such public messaging was dangerous and undermined trust in mainstream healthcare.
That case has now grown into a wider examination of how medical advertising is handled in the country. And the Supreme Court seems to be signalling that enough is enough rules need teeth, and enforcement can’t be optional.
