The Supreme Court of India on Monday sought responses from the Union Ministries of Law, Health, and AYUSH on a plea demanding that AYUSH doctors be recognised as ‘Registered Medical Practitioners’ under the law, similar to allopathic doctors. Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel
The court also issued notice on a request to review and update provisions of a 1954 law related to the regulation of medical advertisements, keeping in view present-day developments.
Bench and Petitioners
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions made by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
The plea was filed by law student Nitin Upadhyay, son of Ashwini Upadhyay. During the hearing, the Chief Justice made a light-hearted remark after learning about their relationship, before issuing notice on the petition.
What the Plea Seeks
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeks:
- A declaration that AYUSH doctors fall under the definition of ‘registered medical practitioners’ in Section 2(cc) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
- A direction to set up an expert committee to revise and update the Act’s schedule in line with modern medical knowledge
The Act aims to control advertisements of drugs and remedies, especially those claiming “magic” cures.
Issue With Current Law
The petition argues that:
- The law was enacted to protect people from false and misleading medical advertisements
- However, Section 3(d) of the Act places a complete ban on advertisements related to certain diseases
- AYUSH and other non-allopathic doctors are not covered under the exception in Section 14, which allows some medical practitioners to advertise
As a result, the plea claims that genuine AYUSH practitioners are unable to inform the public about treatments for serious diseases.
Right to Information Argument
The plea states that:
- The public’s right to information about diagnosis, prevention and treatment of serious and chronic diseases is being restricted
- The ban is based on an outdated law and does not distinguish between misleading claims and truthful, evidence-based medical information
It adds that honest and scientifically supported advertisements should be treated as legitimate information, not misinformation.
Call for Law Update
The petitioner has urged the central government to:
- Form an expert committee
- Review and revise the schedule of the 1954 Act
- Align it with current scientific developments and evidence-based medicine
According to the plea, the original purpose of the law has now turned into a blanket restriction on genuine medical communication by AYUSH doctors.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court has issued notices to the concerned ministries and will hear the matter further after their responses are filed.
The case is being closely watched, as it could have a significant impact on the legal status, communication rights and public role of AYUSH practitioners across India.
You Might Also Like:
At 13, This Kashmiri Boy Built 31 Apps and AI Tools
Zohran Mamdani: The Fearless New York Leader Speaking Truth When Others Stay Silent
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani Calls Maduro’s Capture an Act of War, Warns of Legal and Human Impact