Supreme Court directs Centre to form committee on statutory regulation of pharma marketing

The Supreme Court on Thursday, 8 October 2026, directed the Union government to constitute a committee to examine whether pharmaceutical companies’ marketing practices should be brought under a legally enforceable framework, The Hindu, Verdictum and LiveLaw reported. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition by the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives’ Associations of India (FMRAI).

What the Court said

Reading out the operative part of the order in open court, Justice Mehta said, according to The Hindu: “We have directed the Union of India to constitute the committee and give its recommendations in terms of our previous directives and observations. The matter will be placed before the Court on January 29, 2027, to show compliance with the orders of the Court.”

Verdictum quoted the order as saying the committee “will consider the suggestions, representations, and thereafter give its recommendations to the Union of India”, with the matter listed on 29 January for consideration of the Union’s compliance affidavit. The Court’s order text was not available to us; the account here relies on these reports.

Background

The petition, W.P.(C) No. 323/2021, raises concerns that pharmaceutical companies offer doctors expensive gifts, overseas trips and other incentives, which the petitioners say can influence prescribing and lead to over-prescription. It invokes the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution, Verdictum reported.

Marketing by drug companies is currently governed by the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024, issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals. The Hindu reported that the code added disclosure requirements, an Ethics Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices and tighter rules on gifts, samples and continuing medical education. It is a voluntary code. A committee headed by Dr V.K. Paul of NITI Aayog, constituted in September 2022, had favoured keeping a voluntary code with stronger safeguards rather than making it legally binding, The Hindu said.

In its affidavit the Centre said the UCPMP was functioning satisfactorily but acknowledged a regulatory gap on bringing companies within a statutory framework. Verdictum reported that the Centre also said it was considering the 45th report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, which had recommended making the UCPMP mandatory by law.

Bhaskar English reported that the Court had earlier asked whether the UCPMP had sufficient enforcement mechanisms and whether the Centre intended to give it statutory backing.

The Centre and the petitioners

Bhaskar English reported that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court the committee would have three members and was expected to submit its report within two months, after which the government would decide. Until then, he said, the UCPMP would continue to govern the field. The other reports reviewed did not state the committee’s size or timeline, and the order text was not seen.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, for the petitioners, argued that the system penalises doctors who accept benefits but offers no matching statutory penalty for companies that provide them, and asked for either a statutory framework or interim guidelines, according to the same report. The petitioners also questioned the need for a fresh committee in light of the 2022 one.

What happens next

The Union is to constitute the committee and report compliance when the matter is heard again on 29 January 2027.