The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of regulating unethical marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Court observed that doctors across the country should be mandated to prescribe only generic medicines, in line with existing efforts in Rajasthan. This decision aims to address the growing concerns surrounding the influence of pharmaceutical companies on medical practitioners. The Court’s key observation highlighted that such a nationwide mandate could significantly curb unethical practices and promote public health.
The PIL, filed by the Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives Associations of India and others, challenges the voluntary regulatory measures in place to govern the pharmaceutical industry's marketing practices. The petitioners argue that the current voluntary code for pharmaceutical marketing has proven ineffective, leading to unethical marketing strategies that influence doctors and compromise the right to health as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition seeks stricter enforcement of regulations, particularly emphasizing the need for doctors to prescribe only generic medicines, and the mandatory enforcement of the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP).
Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing the petitioners, argued that the existing framework does not adequately prevent pharmaceutical companies from offering incentives to doctors to encourage the over-prescription of branded medicines. He stressed that while laws exist to regulate doctors' conduct, there are no enforceable laws governing the actions of pharmaceutical companies. He emphasised that implementing a nationwide mandate for doctors to prescribe only generic drugs would result in substantial improvements in public health and prevent unethical practices from flourishing. Whereas, the Union of India, represented by its counsel, countered the petition by citing the existing regulations under the Indian Medical Council, which mandate that doctors prescribe medicines with generic names. The Union also referred to the ongoing discussions regarding making the UCPMP a statutory law to curb unethical practices. The Union argued that the current voluntary code, though not binding, is still effective in restricting pharmaceutical companies from offering inducements such as gifts, cash, or travel facilities to healthcare professionals.
The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, critically examined the existing framework concerning the prescription of generic medicines and found the current voluntary code to be inadequate in addressing the petitioner's concerns. The Court emphasised that the lack of a binding mandate results in inconsistent implementation and leaves room for ambiguity, which undermines the objective of making affordable healthcare accessible to all.
Highlighting the need for stronger enforcement, the Court remarked, "We believe that doctors should be mandated only to prescribe generic medicines. That will fall in line with what you are praying…", signalling its agreement with the petitioner’s demand for a mandatory prescription policy. The Bench cited the example of Rajasthan, where an executive instruction now requires all medical professionals to prescribe only generic medicines, thereby setting a precedent for administrative action.
Justice Sandeep Mehta further underscored the broader implications of such a mandate, stating that if a similar directive were implemented nationwide, it could bring about a substantial and positive transformation in public health by ensuring cost-effective treatment for all segments of society. Additionally, the Court referred to a recent order by the Rajasthan High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which had mandated doctors across the state to prescribe generic medicines. This reference was used to illustrate the growing judicial support and policy momentum behind such reforms, and to reinforce the argument that a nationwide directive could be both practical and impactful.
The Top Court recognised the urgency of the matter and directed that further hearings will take place in July. The Court acknowledged the need for stricter enforcement and the creation of a binding law to regulate the marketing practices of pharmaceutical companies, ensuring that they do not influence doctors' prescribing behaviours through unethical means. The Court's observations have set the stage for future developments that could bring about significant changes in the way medicines are prescribed and marketed in India.
Picture Source : https://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/cropped_article_image/public/blogs_2018/03/pexels-photo-143654.jpeg?itok=JR6Mz5AI