In a rather packed Court No. 3 on Tuesday, the Supreme Court briefly heard a long-pending public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the working conditions and regulatory oversight for medical and sales representatives in India. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta didn’t spend too much time on arguments today, but the exchanges between senior lawyers indicated that the matter is slowly reaching a more structured stage. There was also a sense of impatience in the courtroom, almost as if the judges wanted everyone to cut the clutter and put things in writing.
Background
The PIL was filed originally by the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India, raising concerns about alleged unethical marketing practices, poor working conditions, and the absence of clear statutory protections for professionals in the pharma-marketing sector.
Supreme Court Refuses to Cut 24% Interest in High-Risk Hotel Loan Case, Citing Borrower’s Repeated
Over the past few years, the case has attracted several intervention applications-ranging from industry groups to civil society organisations-turning the matter into a wide canvas of allegations and counter-positions. As one lawyer whispered outside the courtroom, “Yeh matter toh bahut layered ho chuka hai… sabko kuch bolna hai.”
Today’s hearing was largely procedural but still important because the court tried to set timelines and shift the matter toward more concrete inputs.
Court’s Observations
Justice Nath appeared keen to ensure that the arguments-running across thousands of pages-be distilled into clear suggestions. At one point, the bench gently nudged the petitioners’ side, saying, “The bench observed, ‘Please give us a brief note. We can’t navigate everything orally.’”
Supreme Court Reconsiders Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Hints at Balanced
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, who has been arguing for the petitioners, agreed. He assured the court that he would submit a structured note summarising core issues and proposed directions. The bench directed him to share this note within three days with the Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj as well as senior counsel Kapil Sibal, Kavin Gulati, and Gaurav Sharma-each representing different respondents.
On the government side, ASG Nataraj was not particularly expressive during the hearing, but the court still recorded that he should “obtain instructions within three weeks.” This subtly suggested that the Union has to take a clear stand instead of keeping things open-ended.
Another counsel, Kaleeswaram Raj, attending via video conference, was also asked to send his suggestions within three days. The bench encouraged all other respondents to file their responses to the already-filed briefs, hinting that the court wants to bring the discussion to a sharper point.
A touch of courtroom humour surfaced when a lawyer tried to clarify yet another annexure, prompting Justice Mehta to remark lightly, “Let’s not multiply documents. We need clarity, not volume.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Family Court Order Granting Custody to Mother, Says Welfare of
Decision
The bench concluded the session by directing that all briefs, suggestions, and responses be filed within the stipulated time. Importantly, the case was listed for 16 December 2025, marked “HIGH ON BOARD, immediately after fresh matters are over.”
The order essentially pushes all sides to present crisp written positions before the court takes up deeper hearings.
The matter will now return to the Supreme Court on 16 December 2025.
Case Title: Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives PIL on Working Conditions and Ethical Pharma Practices
Case Type: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – W.P.(C) No. 323/2021 & Connected Matters
Court: Supreme Court of India, Court No. 3
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Petitioner: Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India (FMRAI) & Others
Respondents: Union of India & Various Pharma/Industry Stakeholders
Date of Hearing: 18 November 2025