Can AYUSH doctors be declared as Registered Medical Practitioners? Supreme Court seeks Centre's response
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Union Ministries of Law, Health and AYUSH on a PIL seeking recognition of AYUSH doctors as "Registered Medical Practitioners" under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
The plea also urged the Centre to constitute an expert committee to review and update the Act’s schedule, arguing that its blanket ban on advertisements for certain diseases unfairly restricts AYUSH practitioners from disseminating truthful, scientific medical information. The petition contended that the decades-old law is outdated, disproportionately curtails the right to information, and fails to reflect present-day medical and scientific developments.
According to a recent report by PTI, the Supreme Court sought responses of Union ministries of Law, Health and Ayush on a plea seeking a direction to declare AYUSH doctors as 'Registered Medical Practitioners' under the law like allopathic doctors.
The PIL also sought a direction to constitute an expert committee to review and update the schedule of a 1954 law, aimed at controlling advertisement of drugs in certain cases in accordance with present-day scientific developments.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions of lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, representing petitioner law student and his son Nitin Upadhyay, and issued notices on the PIL.
The plea has sought a direction to declare that AYUSH doctors are also covered under section 2(cc) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, as 'registered medical practitioners'.
The Act is aimed at controlling the advertisement of drugs in certain cases, to prohibit the advertisement for certain purposes of remedies alleged to possess magic qualities.
Section 2 (cc) of the Act deals with definition of 'registered medical practitioner'.
"The Act was enacted to protect the public from false and misleading medical advertisements. However, Section 3(d) places a complete ban on advertisements relating to certain diseases and conditions," the plea said.
Section 3 of the Act deals with prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for treatment of certain diseases and disorders.
It said as AYUSH doctors and other genuine non-allopathic registered medical practitioners are not covered under the exception of section 14 of the Act, "this blanket ban effectively stops the advertisement by them of the existence of medication for serious ailments, leading to widespread public ignorance of the drugs", quoest PTI
The plea, filed through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, said section 3(d) of the Act imposes a "complete and blanket ban" on advertisements relating to certain diseases and conditions without distinguishing between misleading advertisements and truthful, scientific and lawful information.
It said the right to information to be cognisant of the diagnosis, prevention, mitigation, cure and treatment of life-threatening chronic diseases has been overridden by a grossly disproportionate prohibition of advertisements through an "archaic law".
"It is humbly submitted that the initial aim of the Act to put an immediate ban over harmful advertisements has devolved into a blanket ban on all genuine medical advertisements by non-allopathic (AYUSH) doctors," it said.
The plea said advertisements relating to drugs and remedies, when truthful, scientifically backed, and non-deceptive, constitute legitimate dissemination of information to consumers and patients.
It has sought a direction to the Centre to "constitute an 'expert committee' to review, revise and update the schedule of the DMR Act in accordance with present-day scientific developments and evidence-based medical knowledge".
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the question of whether doctors practising under indigenous medical systems (AYUSH, Ayurveda, Homoepathy, Unani, etc.) can be equated with allopathic doctors regarding service conditions, such as retirement age and pay scales, was being considered by the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to a larger Bench.
Reference with this regard was made in a batch of pleas that challenged the differential treatment by States in prescribing retirement age and benefits for doctors of different systems of medicine.
Taking note of the divergence of opinion and conflicting judgments on this issue, the Apex Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran referred the question to a larger bench.
"There is divergence of opinion insofar as whether the MBBS doctors and doctors practicing indigenous systems of medicine can be treated equally, for the purpose of service conditions, which on principle, it is trite cannot result in treatment of unequals as equals. We are of the opinion that there should be an authoritative pronouncement on the issue and we hence refer the matter to a larger Bench. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side," the top court bench mentioned in the order.
