Pharma freebies to doctors: SC directs Centre to set up committee to recommend statutory regulations
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union Government to set up a committee to recommend statutory regulations to curb unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has directed that the said panel will take note of the suggestions and representations and submit its recommendations to the Union Government. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 29, 2027.
Also Read: People Must Get a Proper Remedy: SC Criticizes Pharma Marketing Code Gaps
"The committee will consider the suggestions and representations and give its recommendations to the Union. The matter is directed to be listed on 29th January for consideration of compliance affidavit by the Union," the Apex Court bench ordered today during the hearing of the plea seeking statutory regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices, Live Law has reported.
The pleas filed by Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Association of India and others had sought direction that till an effective law was enacted, the top court may lay down the guidelines to control and regulate unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the Supreme Court had reserved its order on the pleas seeking a framework to regulate unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies, after it took note of the Central Government's submission that it was constituting a three-member panel to examine the issue and suggest a statutory framework for ensuring that pharmaceutical companies do not indulge in unethical practices to lure doctors.
The Government had earlier sought two months' time during which the committee would submit its report that will be placed before the court for approval.
Background:
The plea, originally taken up in March 2022, was filed by the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Association of India and others. It sought either a binding law regulating pharmaceutical marketing or modifications to strengthen the current code until such a law is enacted.
The petition noted that doctors are governed by the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which bar them from accepting gifts, hospitality, foreign trips, or monetary benefits from pharmaceutical companies.
However, the code does not apply to pharma companies, resulting in situations where doctors’ licenses are cancelled for misconduct which is “actuated, encouraged, aided, and abetted” by pharma companies, while those companies face no punishment.
The petitioners alleged that many companies, under the guise of “sales promotion”, routinely offer benefits—including sponsored foreign trips, gifts, hospitality, and perks—to influence prescriptions and boost sales.
They argued that no enforceable legal framework currently exists to regulate drug promotion by pharmaceutical companies toward healthcare professionals, allowing unethical practices to persist unchecked.
Last year, while considering the matter, the Supreme Court had expressed its concern over the gaps in the marketing code. It had heavily criticised the weak enforcement of UCPMP, stressing that the framework must include a strong, consumer-friendly mechanism to address unethical marketing by pharmaceutical companies.
The Apex Court had said that procedures under the government’s UCPMP 2024 must be robust enough to ensure that “every person or the consumer who is cheated should be having access and proper remedy.” The Court had also questioned why the current code still lacks a solid, enforceable, and user-friendly system for lodging complaints.
Earlier, relying on the Centre's affidavit dated August 17, 2026, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had submitted that detailed deliberations have taken place between the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Legal Affairs.
He had also submitted that the existing framework already provided for disciplinary action against doctors who accepted gifts, travel facilities, hospitality or monetary grants from pharmaceutical companies. However, on the issue of regulating pharmaceutical companies, he had submitted that the Government had decided to set up a panel to examine whether statutory regulation was necessary and, if so, what form it should take.
While Mehta had submitted that the panel would submit its report within two months, the petitioners had raised their doubts regarding the necessity for another committee. They had pointed out that in an earlier affidabit filed in 2022, the Centre had told the Court that a high-level committee had already been constituted to examine the need for a legally enforceable mechanism.
Highlighting the difference in the treatment of doctors who receive freebies and pharmaceutical companies that offer them, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the existing regime penalised the doctors who accepted the gifts, travel facilities, hospitality or other benefits. However, it does not impose any corresponding statutory penalty on the pharma company that gives the inducement. He further submitted that this gap in the law allowed pharma companies to offer benefits to doctors for influencing prescriptions.
He had argued that there were two possible solutions- either the government bringing a statutory framework, or the Court issuing guidelines for filling up the gap until the legislation is enacted. He stated that he had already submitted suggestions to the Solicitor General on what such a statutory framework should contain, he had sought urgent directions from the Court for the pharma companies and the medical practitioners against indulging in the unethical practices.
The petitioners had also referred to the Supreme Court's 2022 judgment in Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. In this ruling, the Supreme Court had held that medical practitioners had a quasi-fiduciary relationship with their patients and benefits offered by pharma companies could influence the prescriptions by the doctors.
In that ruling, the Apex Court had referred to the instances where pharma companies offered freebies to the doctors in the forms of gold coins, electronic goods, and funding for international trips or medical conferences. Referring to this judgment, Raj submitted that the Court had described the resulting practice as a "publicly injurious cycle".
