In short: On 8 October 2026, the Supreme Court directed the Union government to set up an expert committee. The committee is to examine whether pharmaceutical companies need a legally enforceable framework to curb unethical marketing, including gifts and trips for doctors. For now, the rules remain a voluntary code. The Court will next look at compliance on 29 January 2027.
What did the Supreme Court order?
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Centre to constitute an expert committee. The committee must give recommendations in line with the Court's earlier directions and observations. Justice Mehta read out the operative part in open court and said the matter would be placed before the Court on 29 January 2027 to show compliance.
The practical effect is that the question cannot stay open-ended. The Centre must now come back with a concrete view on whether a statutory regime is needed and, if so, what form it should take.
Who brought the case and what do they allege?
The petition was filed by the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives' Associations of India (FMRAI). It wants a legally binding mechanism to regulate how pharmaceutical companies deal with medical professionals. The respondents named were the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
According to the petition, what is labelled "sales promotion" often involves benefits offered to doctors in return for higher drug sales. These include:
- expensive gifts and entertainment;
- sponsored foreign trips and hospitality;
- other incentives and high-pressure promotional tactics.
The petitioners argue that this can influence prescribing and harm patients. They list over-prescription, unnecessarily high doses, longer treatment than required, and excessive or irrational combinations of drugs. They also say the voluntary nature of the current code has not stopped these practices. They want a statutory code backed by penal provisions, and they point to rules in countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore and Australia. The petition ties the issue to the right to health.
What is the current framework?
Pharma marketing is currently governed by the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024, which is voluntary. It also accepted that there is a gap when it comes to bringing pharmaceutical companies under a statutory framework.
The UCPMP, 2024 brought in:
- an Ethics Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices;
- CEO self-declarations and expenditure disclosures;
- tighter provisions on gifts, brand reminders, physician samples and continuing medical education;
- timelines for complaints, plus audit and referral mechanisms;
- an Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices (ACPMP).
The Centre said the ACPMP had received three complaints so far. In one, a company was accused of giving extravagant trips to around 30 doctors. The company was reprimanded, and the list of doctors was sent to the National Medical Commission for appropriate action.
Why has a legal backing not been created already?
The Centre explained that it had earlier explored giving legal force to the code. Efforts between 2013 and 2018 raised doubts about the proper legal authority and how enforcement would work. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act mainly covers the manufacture, quality and sale of medicines. The Essential Commodities Act covers supply, distribution and prices.
In September 2022 the Centre formed a high-level committee headed by Dr V.K. Paul of NITI Aayog. It preferred a stronger voluntary code to a legally binding one. That advice led to the UCPMP, 2024. The Centre also told the Court that the current framework mainly addresses the conduct of doctors through professional regulations, while regulating the companies needs separate consideration.
Is this connected to the earlier tax ruling?
Yes, as background. In a judgment of 22 February 2022 (Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), the Supreme Court held that pharmaceutical companies cannot claim tax deductions for freebies given to doctors. It treated such freebies as prohibited by law and not a business expense. The present case deals with the wider question of marketing regulation, not tax.
Who is affected and what should you do?
- Pharmaceutical companies: nothing changes immediately. The UCPMP, 2024 remains the operative code, and a binding regime is only under examination.
- Doctors: professional and statutory rules on their conduct continue to apply.
- Patients: no action is needed. You can ask your doctor why a particular medicine has been prescribed.
The committee has not yet been formed and nothing has been decided on a new law. Watch for the hearing on 29 January 2027.
Frequently asked questions
Has the Supreme Court made pharma marketing rules legally binding?
No. It has only directed the Centre to form an expert committee to examine whether a statutory framework is needed and to make recommendations.
What is the UCPMP, 2024?
It is the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2024, a voluntary code. It covers disclosures, gifts, samples, continuing medical education and complaint handling, and it created an Ethics Committee and an Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices.
When will the case be heard next?
The matter is listed for 29 January 2027, when the Centre must show compliance with the Court's directions.
Sources
- The Hindu: Supreme Court orders Centre to form panel to regulate unethical pharma marketing
- Hindustan Times: SC orders Centre to form panel for law on unethical pharma marketing
- Economic Times: SC moves to curb pharma firms' unethical marketing