Pharma Marketing Framework Not Entirely Effective: Supreme Court Directs Committee Within Two Weeks, Report in Two Months

A trade union of medical representatives and others petitioned under Article 32 in 2021, alleging that gifts, hospitality, travel and other inducements by pharmaceutical companies distort prescribing, and that the voluntary Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2015 was unenforceable; they sought statutory backing for the code or interim guidelines (paras 1-5). After deliberations ordered by the Court, the Union filed an affidavit proposing a three-member committee to recommend a statutory and regulatory framework, with the UCPMP, 2024 continuing meanwhile (paras 6-10). The petitioners did not oppose the committee but sought a meaningful consultation; the Union disputed their claim that a 2022 committee had achieved nothing (paras 11-14).

The issues are of considerable public importance (para 16). The material on record shows that the existing framework has not proved entirely effective in curbing unethical practices; in a sector bearing directly on citizens' health, a regulatory framework must be judged by its implementation and enforcement, not merely by the norms it prescribes (para 17). The Union's own proposal of a committee reflects the need to re-examine and strengthen the framework (para 18). Any framework must balance the industry's legitimate interests with the paramount need to protect patients and ensure ethical, accessible and affordable healthcare (para 19). Choosing the statutory framework and the extent of oversight is a matter of legislative and executive policy, and under the separation of powers the Court cannot substitute its own policy for the executive's (para 20). Judicial restraint, however, does not mean indifference where public health and the right to health are affected; the Court's role at this stage is to facilitate a meaningful consultative process (para 21). It therefore issued directions under Articles 32 and 142 (paras 22-23).