On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court issued crucial directives to state governments for the strict enforcement of the Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act). This Act, designed to prevent misleading advertisements about medical cures, has been in existence for over 70 years but remains poorly implemented.
"The 1954 Act is more than 70 years old. Unfortunately, there is no implementation in its letter and spirit. It is necessary for the state governments to create machinery for implementation of the 1954 Act." — Supreme Court
The Court has ordered state governments to appoint authorized officers under Section 8 of the DMR Act within a month to handle search, seizure, and legal action against violators. Police officers must undergo training at academies to ensure effective enforcement. Additionally, states must establish public grievance redressal systems within two months, allowing citizens to file complaints via toll-free numbers or emails. All complaints should be forwarded to the authorized officers without delay, and if violations are confirmed, criminal proceedings must be initiated. Public awareness campaigns will be conducted to educate people about the Act’s provisions and the risks of misleading advertisements.
"It is also necessary that the legal services authorities educate the masses about the provisions of the 1954 Act and warn them of the harmful effects on their health in case they are swayed by the said advertisements." — Supreme Court
The Court clarified that the definition of advertisement under Section 2 of the Act covers all forms of media, including television, radio, online platforms, print media, and even verbal or visual representations. This means that publishers, designers, and promoters of misleading advertisements will also be held accountable.
"The basic object is to ensure that objectionable advertisements of drugs and magic remedies are not published." — Supreme Court
Several state governments faced criticism for failing to comply with previous orders issued on July 30, 2024. States must submit compliance reports by April 2025, with special attention given to Himachal Pradesh, a major pharmaceutical hub, which had not yet filed its affidavit of compliance.
"We direct the registry to forward the copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the state as well as the Advocate on Record representing the State of Himachal Pradesh." — Supreme Court
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat highlighted three key enforcement methods under the DMR Act: filing First Information Reports (FIRs) against misleading advertisements, utilizing search and seizure powers, and ensuring state scrutiny of misleading ads under Rule 3 of the DMR Rules, 1955. He criticized several states for merely issuing warnings instead of taking legal action.
"That is not a process. The Court may specifically say that it is not permitted." — Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat
Read Also:- Supreme Court Ruling: Delay in Recording Witness Statements Not Always Fatal Under CrPC
Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj informed the Court that a dashboard is being developed to track and display actions taken against misleading advertisements. The Court directed the Union of India to ensure that all states upload relevant enforcement data on this platform within three months.
"We grant a time of 3 months to the Union of India to ensure that the dashboard is developed in such a manner that States can upload all information regarding actions taken under the 1954 Act." — Supreme Court
The Court reiterated that Section 3 of the Act bans advertisements related to miscarriage, contraception, sexual enhancement, menstrual disorders, and cures for diseases such as cancer, diabetes, cataract, blood pressure, venereal diseases, and kidney stones. Section 4 prohibits misleading claims, Section 5 bans magic remedies advertisements, and Section 6 forbids the import of objectionable ads.
The Supreme Court’s focus on misleading medical ads intensified after a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The Court held that advertisers and endorsers, including public figures, are equally accountable for misleading promotions under Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines.
"Advertisers and public figures endorsing products are equally accountable under the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines." — Supreme Court
Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders Uttarakhand Government to Pay Rs.1 Crore Compensation to Family of Slain Doctor
Key Supreme Court orders related to the case include directives issued on May 7, 2024, requiring stricter regulations against misleading advertisements, and subsequent compliance deadlines for states and the Union. On February 24, 2025, the Court called for a public complaint mechanism, and on March 17, 2025, Amicus Curiae reported widespread non-compliance by states regarding penalties under the Act.
Despite earlier orders, Patanjali Ayurved continued publishing misleading advertisements, prompting contempt proceedings. However, apologies from Baba Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna, and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. led to the closure of the case on August 13, 2024. Similarly, IMA President Dr. RV Asokan faced contempt charges for his critical remarks about the Court. The case was closed after he published apology advertisements in The Hindu newspaper.
Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 645/2022
Case Title – Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
