The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from three Union Ministries regarding a petition to declare doctors practicing Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) as ‘Registered Medical Practitioners’ (RMPs). The plea also demands a review and update of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 , to align with current scientific knowledge.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The PIL was filed by law student Nitin Upadhyay, represented by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
Supreme Court’s Directive
The Supreme Court directed the Union Ministries of Law, Health, and AYUSH to submit their responses. This follows a plea seeking official recognition for AYUSH practitioners under existing medical laws.
The court’s action marks a crucial step in a legal challenge concerning the status and advertising rights of non-allopathic medical systems in India.
The Plea’s Core Demands
The PIL primarily seeks two directions from the Centre. First, it requests that AYUSH doctors be formally declared RMPs under legal definitions, similar to allopathic practitioners.
Second, the plea urges the constitution of an expert committee. This committee would review and update the schedule of the 1954 Act, incorporating modern scientific developments and evidence-based medicine.
The petition specifically requests that AYUSH doctors be included under Section 2(cc) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
Understanding the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954
The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 , controls drug advertisements in specific cases. Its original purpose was to prevent misleading medical claims and prohibit ads for remedies claiming "magic qualities."
Section 2(cc) of this Act defines a ‘registered medical practitioner’. Section 3 outlines the prohibition of advertisements for certain drugs and treatments of specified diseases and disorders. The Act aims to protect the public from false and deceptive advertisements.
However, the plea argues that Section 3(d) of the Act imposes a "complete and blanket ban" on advertisements related to certain diseases. This ban applies without differentiating between misleading ads and truthful, scientifically supported information.
Arguments for Revision
The petitioner claims the 1954 Act’s blanket ban disadvantages AYUSH doctors. As non-allopathic RMPs are not covered by Section 14 exceptions, the ban stops them from advertising the existence of medications for serious ailments.
This lack of advertising, the plea states, leads to widespread public ignorance about available AYUSH drugs and remedies. The PIL argues this outdated law overrides the public’s right to information regarding diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of chronic diseases.
The plea asserts that truthful, scientifically backed, and non-deceptive advertisements for drugs and remedies represent legitimate information dissemination to patients. It contends that the Act’s initial goal of banning harmful advertisements has evolved into a broad restriction on all genuine medical advertisements by non-allopathic practitioners.
The petitioner argues for an urgent review to align the law with current scientific understanding. The plea highlights the necessity of updating the Act’s schedule to reflect evidence-based medical knowledge and present-day scientific advancements.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court has issued notices to the involved Union Ministries. Their responses are now awaited. This legal process could impact the recognition and operational framework for AYUSH practitioners across India, potentially revising advertising regulations for traditional and alternative medicine systems.