Archive · 27 Dec 2025
Plea in SC seeks update to drug ad law
A man named Nitin Upadhyay has asked the Supreme Court to update an old law from 1954 that controls how medicines can be advertised.
He wants the law to be changed to include doctors who practice traditional Indian medicine (AYUSH) as 'registered medical practitioners'.
The current law bans ads for certain diseases, but he says this stops AYUSH doctors from telling people about real treatments.
He believes the law is too old and should be updated to reflect modern science.
He also thinks people should have the right to know about treatments for serious illnesses.
A plea filed in the Supreme Court seeks to update the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
The plea argues that AYUSH doctors should be included under the definition of 'registered medical practitioners' in the Act.
The current law imposes a blanket ban on advertisements for certain diseases, which the petitioner claims is outdated and prevents genuine information from reaching the public.
The petitioner argues that the law should distinguish between misleading advertisements and truthful, scientifically backed information.
The plea seeks the constitution of an expert committee to review and update the Act in accordance with present-day scientific developments.
- Who
- Nitin Upadhyay, represented by advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey
- What
- Filed a plea in the Supreme Court to update the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
- When
- Not specified
- Where
- Supreme Court of India
- Why
- To review and update the Act in accordance with present-day scientific developments and to include AYUSH doctors under the definition of 'registered medical practitioners'
- Act
- Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
- Petitioner
- Nitin Upadhyay
- Advocate
- Ashwani Kumar Dubey
- Section 2(cc)
- Definition of 'registered medical practitioner'
- Section 3(d)
- Ban on advertisements for certain diseases and conditions
- Section 14
- Exception clause not covering AYUSH doctors