People Must Get a Proper Remedy: SC Criticizes Pharma Marketing Code Gaps
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the weak enforcement of the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), stressing that the framework must include a strong, consumer-friendly mechanism to address unethical marketing by pharmaceutical companies.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta 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 questioned why the current code still lacks a solid, enforceable, and user-friendly system for lodging complaints.
The observation came during the hearing of a plea seeking stronger rules to curb unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical firms.
Court Questions Missing Complaint Mechanism
Reiterating its concerns, the Bench asked:
“But if you have brought out a code, why should not that code be having appropriate measures whereby the consumers have a convenient mechanism for lodging their complaints and ensuring that action is taken against erring companies.”
The Court said the system must be effective enough to protect consumer interests and ensure accountability. It added that there must be “appropriate measures where the consumers have a convenient mechanism for lodging their complaints and ensuring that action is taken against erring companies.”
Government Defends Policies; Says Online Portal May Be Launched
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, informed the Court that the government has introduced various policies for regulating drug pricing and curbing unethical activities.
He referred to the Uniform Code for Pharmaceuticals Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024, which prohibits pharma companies from giving gifts, travel facilities, and hospitality to healthcare professionals or their family members.
Nataraj explained the complaint and penalty procedures under the code and said that an independent online portal could soon be created to streamline the complaint mechanism, reports PTI.
He also cited the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which governs the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of medicines in India, and said there is a separate system for regulating drug pricing.
Petitioners Argue Code Is Still Voluntary
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing the petitioners, argued that UCPMP 2024 remains only a voluntary code and is therefore ineffective in curbing unethical promotion by drug manufacturers.
The Bench asked the Centre to take instructions on whether the government is considering enacting a statutory law to regulate such activities. It also asked Parikh to submit detailed suggestions addressing the deficiencies highlighted in the plea.
Also Read: SC Questions Effectiveness of UCPMP, Seeks Govt Clarification on Pharma Freebies
As per LawChakra report, the Court directed the Centre to respond after evaluating those suggestions and listed the matter for further hearing on December 16.
Background: Long-Standing Concerns Over Enforcement
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.
Earlier Hearing Echoed Similar Concerns
In a previous hearing held in September, the Supreme Court remarked that the real problem lay in the poor “implementation” of existing norms—an issue the Court revisited again during the latest hearing.
With the Court now pressing the government on whether a statutory regime is being considered, the next hearing on December 16 is expected to clarify how the Centre plans to strengthen enforcement mechanisms under UCPMP.
