New Delhi, December 27, 2025: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court of India raising critical issues concerning the law governing advertisements of drugs and remedies, particularly highlighting the need for reform of a nearly seven-decade-old statute. The petition, filed by Nitin Upadhyay through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, seeks directions to the Centre to constitute an expert committee to review and update the schedule of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, in line with present-day scientific developments and evidence-based medical knowledge.

The plea specifically addresses the challenges faced by AYUSH doctors—practitioners of Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy—and other non-allopathic registered medical practitioners who, according to the petitioner, are currently constrained under the provisions of the 1954 Act. The petition argues that AYUSH doctors should be formally recognized under Section 2 of the Act as “registered medical practitioners,” allowing them to share legitimate, scientifically backed information about treatments and remedies for various diseases.

The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act of 1954 was enacted with the primary objective of protecting the public from misleading or false advertisements concerning drugs, especially those claimed to have “magic qualities.” The Act prohibits advertising of drugs for certain diseases and conditions, including serious ailments, without scientific validation. Section 2 of the Act provides definitions, including the term “registered medical practitioner,” while Section 3 lays down a blanket ban on advertisements relating to specified diseases and disorders. Section 14, in contrast, contains limited exceptions primarily covering allopathic medical practitioners.

According to the plea, the current framework of the Act disproportionately restricts non-allopathic doctors from disseminating truthful information about their medicines and remedies. “While the Act was intended to prevent the public from being misled by false or unverified claims, Section 3 imposes a complete and blanket ban on all advertisements for certain diseases and conditions, without distinguishing between misleading advertisements and genuine, scientifically validated information,” the petition said.

The petitioner argued that this situation has created widespread public ignorance, particularly regarding the availability of treatments for life-threatening chronic illnesses. By not including AYUSH doctors and other non-allopathic practitioners under Section 2, the law effectively restricts them from advertising the existence of scientifically supported remedies. “The initial aim of the Act to put an immediate ban over harmful and deceptive advertisements has devolved into a blanket prohibition, even on genuine medical advertisements by non-allopathic doctors,” the plea stated.

The petition contends that truthful, evidence-based advertising by non-allopathic practitioners constitutes a legitimate form of dissemination of medical information. This, in turn, contributes to the right of citizens to access information regarding diagnosis, prevention, mitigation, treatment, and cure of diseases. “The right to be cognizant of treatment options for life-threatening chronic diseases has been overridden by a grossly disproportionate prohibition on advertisements through an archaic law,” the plea said.

Further, the plea highlighted the need for modernization and scientific review of the Act’s provisions. Nearly seven decades old, the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act was enacted at a time when both the medical landscape and public awareness about treatments were significantly different. According to the petitioner, medical science has advanced considerably, and the regulatory framework should reflect contemporary evidence-based practices.

To address these issues, the plea requested the Supreme Court to direct the Union government to constitute an expert committee tasked with reviewing, revising, and updating the schedule of the Act. Such a committee would ideally include medical scientists, pharmacologists, representatives of AYUSH councils, legal experts, and consumer rights advocates. Its mandate would be to assess which advertisements genuinely pose a risk of misleading the public, and which convey scientifically valid, non-deceptive information that could benefit patients.

The plea emphasizes that the reform should ensure a balanced approach—protecting consumers from false claims while enabling the dissemination of accurate, scientifically validated information about drugs and remedies. The petitioner specifically underlined that non-allopathic systems of medicine, which have longstanding historical and scientific frameworks, are currently unable to communicate treatment options due to restrictive interpretations of the law. This, the plea argued, undermines the public’s access to valuable health information.

The petitioner also drew attention to the evolving healthcare ecosystem, where integrated medicine—including allopathic, AYUSH, and evidence-based alternative treatments—plays an increasing role in patient care. Restrictive legal provisions that do not distinguish between misleading advertisements and legitimate medical communication could inadvertently harm public health by limiting awareness about treatment options, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas where AYUSH practitioners often serve as primary healthcare providers.

In its submission, the plea pointed out that while Section 3 of the 1954 Act prohibits advertisements related to serious diseases, it fails to provide clarity or differentiation between scientifically validated and unvalidated claims. In the petitioner’s view, this has created a legal grey area, leaving practitioners uncertain about what constitutes lawful communication and what could attract penalties under the Act.

The petitioner urged the Court to acknowledge that scientifically accurate, non-deceptive advertisements about drugs and remedies constitute a legitimate exercise of the right to information. Denying this under a broad and outdated legislative provision undermines the public’s right to make informed decisions about healthcare. The plea also cited international best practices, highlighting that several jurisdictions allow regulated advertising by certified medical practitioners while strictly prohibiting misleading claims.

Furthermore, the plea highlighted the importance of public health awareness in combating diseases. By restricting all advertisements without distinction, the 1954 Act potentially hinders public access to knowledge about treatment options for chronic and life-threatening diseases. This, according to the petitioner, can lead to delayed interventions, poorer health outcomes, and unnecessary reliance on unverified remedies.

The Supreme Court plea also addressed the procedural aspects of the law, seeking a framework that allows for transparent evaluation of advertisements, based on scientific evidence and clinical validation. By involving an expert committee, the petitioner argued, the Act can be reformed to distinguish harmful or misleading claims from genuine medical communications, ensuring that public health objectives are met without unnecessarily curbing legitimate practices.

In conclusion, the petition sought the Court’s direction to the Union government to:

1. Constitute an expert committee to review, revise, and update the schedule of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954, in line with modern scientific developments and evidence-based medical knowledge.
2. Recognize AYUSH doctors and other non-allopathic practitioners as “registered medical practitioners” under Section 2 of the Act, allowing them to provide truthful, non-deceptive information regarding drugs and remedies for specified diseases.
3. Ensure that the law balances the protection of consumers from false claims with the right to information and awareness about legitimate medical treatments.

The plea underlines the need for reforming an archaic legal framework that has not kept pace with contemporary scientific understanding, medical practices, and public health priorities. By addressing these gaps, the Court could ensure that the law continues to serve its original purpose—protecting the public from misleading advertisements—while also enabling informed choices and wider access to medical knowledge.