New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Union Ministries of Law, Health, and AYUSH on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking recognition of AYUSH doctors as “Registered Medical Practitioners” under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The plea argues that AYUSH practitioners should be placed on par with allopathic doctors for the purposes of the Act.
Challenge to Outdated Law
The PIL contends that the 1954 law, enacted to curb misleading medical advertisements, has become outdated and does not reflect present-day scientific and medical developments. It specifically challenges the blanket ban under Section 3(d) of the Act, which prohibits advertisements relating to certain diseases, arguing that it unfairly restricts AYUSH doctors from sharing truthful and evidence-based medical information.
Demand for Expert Committee
The petition also seeks a direction to the Centre to constitute an expert committee to review, revise, and update the schedule of the Act. According to the plea, the existing provisions disproportionately curtail the public’s right to information regarding diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of serious ailments, particularly when such information is non-deceptive and scientifically supported.
Court Proceedings and Submissions
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions made by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, and issued notices to the concerned ministries. The plea highlights that AYUSH doctors are not covered under the exceptions provided in Section 14 of the Act, effectively barring them from advertising legitimate treatments.
Broader Context of AYUSH Parity
The matter gains significance in light of earlier Supreme Court proceedings examining whether doctors practising indigenous systems of medicine can be equated with allopathic doctors in service conditions such as retirement age and pay scales. Noting conflicting judgments, the apex court had referred that broader issue to a larger bench, underscoring the continuing legal debate on parity between different systems of medicine.
