Supreme Court Directs States To Establish Grievance Mechanisms For Public Against Misleading Medical Advertisements Within 2 Months

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan examined the provisions of the 1954 Act and the 1955 Rules framed under it, taking note of the need for their proper implementation before passing directions to ensure the same.

Senior Advocate Shadaan Farasat, appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter, submitted that there was a lack of enforcement of the Act. The Amicus took the Court through Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the 1954 Act and submitted that despite the Act being in force for over 70 years, its implementation remained inadequate.

During an earlier hearing, the Court had reviewed submissions made by the Amicus Curiae, who highlighted the lack of prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the relevant law, as per state affidavits. “No prosecutions are happening, and many states cite difficulties in identifying offenders,” the Senior Counsel had submitted.

Justice Oka had questioned the inadequate steps taken by states, pointing out that responses like the Delhi Government's claim of difficulty in identifying offenders and Karnataka's explanation regarding unidentified offenders were unsatisfactory. "Why not take action based on complaints received?" the Bench asked.

On the last date of hearing, the Court deferred the matter, stating that an "exhaustive order" was necessary for the effective implementation of the 1954 Act, and took note of affidavits filed by Chief Secretaries of various states, observing that Rule 170, which governs the regulation of misleading advertisements, is now being implemented.

The Court noted that state governments must take active steps to enforce the law, educate the public, and establish grievance redressal mechanisms.

The Bench issued the following directions to ensure compliance with the 1954 Act and 1955 Rules:

• “States are to ensure that adequate Gazetted officers are authorised in terms of Section 8(1) of the 1954 Act and are appointed within a period of one month from today.
• Officers or persons authorised as referred in Sub-rule (3) of the 1955 Rules are also to be appointed within a period of one month from today.
• We also direct the States to sensitise the police machinery through Police Training Academies on the implementation of the provisions of the 1954 Act.
• The State Governments shall create grievance redressal mechanisms to enable members of the public to lodge complaints about the objectionable advertisements prohibited under the 1954 Act. The grievance redressal mechanism may provide for making complaints either on a toll-free number or via email.
• We direct the State Government to create a grievance redressal mechanism within a period of two months from today and give adequate publicity to the availability of the grievance redress mechanism at frequent intervals.
• As soon as complaints are received through the grievance redressal mechanism or otherwise, the same shall be immediately forwarded to the concerned officer authorised under Section 8(1) to take action under the said provision. If the officer finds that there is a contravention of the provisions of the 1954 Act, he shall set the criminal law in motion by lodging a complaint with the jurisdictional police station so that the First Information Report is registered, and criminal law is set in motion…”

The Court further directed the Union of India to develop a dashboard within three months, that would allow states to upload detailed information regarding the actions taken under the 1954 Act and its rules. Additionally, the Court directed that all States and the Union of India must ensure compliance with the Court’s directions and submit their compliance affidavits by the end of June 2025.

On the last date of hearing, the Court deferred the matter, stating that an "exhaustive order" was necessary for the effective implementation of the 1954 Act, and took note of affidavits filed by Chief Secretaries of various states, observing that Rule 170, which governs the regulation of misleading advertisements, is now being implemented.

On February 24, the Court reviewed the compliance status of Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Pondicherry, and Punjab. Taking a strong stance against Jharkhand’s claim that no manufacturers had applied for permission under Rule 170, the Court directed the state to clarify whether any advertisements violating Rule 170(2) were being published. Emphasizing the state's duty to ensure compliance, the Court ordered the submission of an affidavit.

Cause Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 645/2022)