Supreme Court Cracks Down on Fake Medical Ads
States Ordered to Act Against Misleading Health Claims
Unmesh Gujarathi
Sprouts News Exclusive
In a significant ruling on Wednesday, March 26, the Supreme Court issued critical directives to state governments for the effective implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act). This Act, enacted over 70 years ago, aims to prohibit misleading advertisements related to medical cures. However, the Court expressed concern over its poor implementation, urging states to take concrete action.
• A Long-Ignored Law Gets a Push
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that the DMR Act has not been enforced in its “letter and spirit.” To address this, the Court has directed states to establish mechanisms to ensure compliance. The Sprouts News Team highlights the following key directives:
• Appointment of Officers – State governments must appoint an adequate number of gazetted officers under Section 8 of the Act within one month. These officers will have the authority to conduct searches and seizures of misleading advertisements.
2. Police Sensitization – States must train police officers on the DMR Act’s provisions through police academies.
3. Grievance Redressal System – States must create mechanisms for the public to file complaints against misleading advertisements. This includes toll-free numbers and email-based reporting systems, which must be set up within two months.
4. Swift Action on Complaints – Upon receiving complaints, authorized officers must investigate and, if violations are found, initiate criminal proceedings.
5. Public Awareness Campaigns – National and state legal services authorities must conduct sensitization programs to educate people on the dangers of misleading advertisements.
• Misleading Advertisements: A Growing Concern
The Sprouts News Team notes that misleading medical advertisements have been a long-standing issue. Under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Act, advertisements promoting cures for severe ailments such as cancer, diabetes, and kidney diseases are strictly prohibited. However, the Court observed that many states fail to take strict action against violators.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, serving as Amicus Curiae, pointed out that many states limit their actions to warnings rather than legal consequences. The Supreme Court clarified that mere warnings are insufficient and instructed states to file FIRs against offenders.
• States Ordered to Report Compliance
The Court has also directed all states and union territories to submit compliance reports by April 2025, detailing actions taken against misleading advertisements. The Sprouts News Team has learned that Himachal Pradesh, a major hub for pharmaceutical manufacturing, has been specifically asked to submit a compliance affidavit.
Furthermore, the Court has mandated the Union government to develop a central dashboard where states can upload details of enforcement actions. The deadline for this digital system is June 2025.
• Patanjali Case: A Lesson for Advertisers
This case originated from a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking action against misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The Supreme Court had previously held Patanjali, along with its MD Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev, accountable for violating its orders. Apologies were later published, leading to the closure of contempt proceedings.
The Sprouts News Team recalls that the Court had earlier ruled that advertisers, public figures, and endorsers are equally responsible for false claims. To strengthen consumer protection, advertisers must now submit self-declarations before airing commercials.
Also Read: Adani Group Faces ₹3.4 Lakh Crore Wipeout!
• A Landmark Step Towards Consumer Safety
This latest ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to safeguarding public health by cracking down on deceptive medical advertisements. The Sprouts News Team will continue monitoring the implementation of these directives and bring updates on how state governments respond.
With the Court setting strict deadlines, all eyes are now on state authorities to ensure that misleading health claims no longer exploit unsuspecting consumers.