Why Supreme Court has sought review of pharma freebie rules, their stricter enforcement

Market Mastery

Webinar by Vishal Malkan

Find the weak links

in your portfolio by Vishal Malkan

The Supreme Court’s October 8 order on pharmaceutical practices is not a fresh ban on freebies or a replacement of the marketing code but an acknowledgment that the current system has failed to curb unethical practices.

The Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Association of India had moved the top court saying pharma companies continue to influence prescribing behaviour through gifts, hospitality, sponsored travel, entertainment and other inducements to doctors.

Such practices can lead to over-prescription, irrational prescribing and preference for expensive brands, increasing treatment costs for patients, it said.

Acknowledging that the issue involved policy decisions that primarily fall within the government's domain, the Supreme Court said the existing framework has "not proved entirely effective in preventing and curbing unethical practices". Regulations must be judged not merely by their existence but implementation and enforcement, it said.

What the court wants

The court directed the government to set up a committee within two weeks for a comprehensive review of unethical pharmaceutical marketing practices.

The panel will examine if the regulatory system is adequate, assess monitoring and enforcement mechanisms and recommend measures to improve transparency, accountability and compliance.

The committee has to submit its recommendations within two months of its first meeting. The government must then take an appropriate decision on the proposed reforms, it said.

The court stopped short of saying giving statutory backing to the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024, a key demand of the petitioners. It chose to facilitate a consultative process while keeping the issue under judicial scrutiny.

Is the UCPMP 2024 effective?

The UCPMP, 2024 significantly tightened the code governing pharmaceutical marketing. It prohibits gifts, vacations, hospitality and monetary benefits to doctors and their families, imposes limits on free samples, restricts industry-sponsored medical education events, requires annual CEO self-declarations and introduces disclosure and complaint-handling mechanisms.

The Supreme Court order, however, does not create new compliance obligations.

The court's concern is that a code is only as effective as its monitoring and accountability mechanisms. It highlighted the need for stronger implementation, oversight, transparency and enforcement.

Where the gaps remain

Despite successive policy efforts, concerns about unethical promotion have continued for years.

The petitioners argued that while doctors face ethical restrictions under medical regulations, there has been no equally enforceable framework for pharmaceutical companies that induce such behaviour.

They also contended that earlier versions of the UCPMP lacked strong monitoring, transparency and punitive mechanisms.

The government, for its part, told the court that UCPMP 2024 has already introduced tighter disclosure standards, audit mechanisms, complaint timelines and oversight structures.

The court said existing framework may not be adequately preventing violations as concerns continued to persist.

The judgment repeatedly links pharma marketing practices with the right to health under Article 21.

The issue goes beyond industry conduct and directly affects affordability, accessibility and quality of healthcare, it said.

Unethical inducements can result in unnecessary prescriptions, irrational drug combinations, excessive use of medicines and preference for higher-priced brands over cheaper alternatives, the court was told. Such practices could also contribute to adverse drug reactions and antimicrobial resistance.

Impact on patients and ethical operators

For patients, the biggest consequence is financial. In a country where a large share of healthcare spending is out-of-pocket, prescriptions influenced by commercial incentives can increase treatment costs and reduce access to affordable medicines.

The impact is equally significant for ethical pharma companies. Firms that invest in quality, compliance and pricing discipline often find themselves competing against rivals willing to spend aggressively on promotional incentives. This creates a distorted competitive landscape where marketing muscle can outweigh product value.