The Supreme Court on Monday took exception to the lack of action by States over their failure to act against misleading medical advertisements [Indian Medical Association v. Union of India]..The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 must be implemented in letter and spirit to prevent false and unverified medical claims which could mislead the public..The Court made it clear that States must take proactive steps to enforce the law instead of merely relying on complaints. It particularly questioned the State of Jharkhand, which claimed that no advertisements under Rule 170 of the Act had been published in the State. The Bench observed that while the State maintained that no manufacturer had applied for permission under Rule 170, it had not clarified whether such advertisements were being published."It is the state's duty to ascertain whether any advertisements covered under sub-rules 2 and 3 of Rule 170 are being published," the Court stated..Karnataka was also reprimanded for its failure to take proactive steps in identifying violators. The Court noted that the State had its own police machinery and cyber cells, making it "very easy" to trace the sources of misleading advertisements. The State was directed to identify the names and addresses of violators and file an affidavit..The Court was informed by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat that Kerala had made significant progress in implementation, while Punjab had filed a fresh affidavit, which needed further review. Madhya Pradesh had submitted its affidavit recently, prompting the court to defer its consideration..During the hearing, the Chief Secretary of Puducherry was initially issued notice for not filing an affidavit, but the direction was withdrawn after counsel for the UT later clarified that it had been submitted. .Regarding the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Bench pointed out that despite the summoning order being passed on February 10, the state was yet to file its affidavit. On being requested by the counsel for the State to retract its observations regarding non-compliance, the Bench refused, emphasizing that such requests were unfair and had to be noted in the record.."We could have shown magnanimity provided compliance was reported... If there was some sort of responsibility, the officer would have filed the affidavit. Requests like these on behalf of States are unfair. They will be recorded and rejected", the Court stated. .The Court will now review compliance affidavits submitted by the States and Union Territories, assess the effectiveness of regulatory measures in curbing misleading medical advertisements and consider additional steps to ensure strict enforcement of the law.The Amicus Curiae has been directed to submit a detailed note outlining the implementation framework which will aid the bench in formulating further directives..[Read Live Coverage].[Read Order]
