Supreme Court directs States to appoint officers to enforce Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act

Introduction

In a recent judgment dated 26th March 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed numerous directions to the State Governments to ensure effective administration and implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 (“DMR Act”) which was brought into force for prohibiting the publication of misleading advertisements pertaining to magical cures.

While adjudicating the present matter, a two-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Hon’ble Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted the poor implementation of the act along with the lack of state government machinery to enforce the Act.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Court issued the following important directives, emphasizing the necessity of a grievance redressal mechanism in every state against such deceptive advertisements:

1. Within a month from now, the States will make sure that a sufficient number of gazetted officers authorized under Section 8 of the Act are appointed. Within a month, officers or authorized individuals listed in Rule 3 of the 1955 regulations must also be appointed;
2. The States have been directed to adequately sensitize the police machinery through the police training academy in the state for the effective administration and implementation of the provisions of 1954 Act.
3. It shall be the responsibility of the State Government to create a Grievance Redressal Mechanism in order to enable the members of the public to lodge complaints pertaining to objectionable advertisements which have been prohibited under the Act.
4. As soon as complaints are received through the grievance redressal mechanism or otherwise, the same shall be immediately submitted to the competent official designated under Section 8(1) to take action under the aforementioned provision. The officer will initiate the criminal law by filing a complaint with the police station in order to file first information reports if he discovers a violation of the 1954 Act.
5. The grievance procedure may allow complaints to be sent by email or over a toll-free line. The Court has allowed the state governments two months from the date of the Judgment to establish appropriate grievance redressal procedures and to adequately publicize their availability on a regular basis.
6. The Bench has also instructed the registry to send a copy of this order to the National Legal Services Authority so that awareness campaigns can be conducted in the national authority’s camps and by state and district authorities, educating the public about the 1954 act’s provisions and, more importantly, the dangers that may arise if they rely on advertisements and use drugs or the magic remedies that are promoted in the banned advertisements.

Liability of the Publishers and Designers of the Advertisement

The Hon’ble Court has also noted that the interpretation of the term “advertisement” under Section 2 of the Act is not limited to the print media, television media or other media but also extends to cover numerous other forms of media such as circulate, labels, wrappers or other documents or announcements that have been made orally or through light and sound medium. In reference to Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act which pertain to an express prohibition upon the misleading advertisements under the Act, it was observed by the Bench that the above – mentioned provisions would also extend to those who design and publish the advertisements which are prohibited under the law.

The liability of the misleading advertisements in context of the DMR Act has therefore been extended to not only those who order such advertisements to be made but also to those who design or publish or disseminate such advertisements in any domain like print media, social media, virtual media etc.

Previous Orders issued against Misleading Advertisements

On July 30, 2024, the Court ordered States and Union Territories to comply with its previous orders, which mandated that the states and UTs submit affidavits outlining the steps their State Licensing Authorities had taken (both in response to complaints and on their own initiative) to make sure that producers of food items, health products, and other items did not run deceptive advertisements.

The Amicus Curiae in the present case Shadan Farsat noted that the State of Himachal Pradesh is the hub of manufacturing of drugs and pharmaceutical products but so far, no affidavit of compliance has been filed by the state. Therefore, the Supreme Court has also directed the State Government to file an affidavit in compliance with the previous orders.

Moreover, according to the court, numerous state governments which have merely given warnings to the entities using misleading advertisements have also been directed to take adequate punitive actions against the states which may include:

I. Directly registering an FIR as such an advertisement is a cognizable offence.

II. Any gazetted officer can conduct a search and seize any misleading advertisement and then file an FIR as per S.8 of the DMR Act.

III. An officer authorised by the State Government may scrutinize an alleged misleading advertisement as per Rule 3 of DMR Rules 1955 read with S.4 of the Act and then proceed to file an FIR.

Conclusion

The present judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is an eye-opener for numerous state governments as well as the entities indulging in the creation, publication or dissemination of misleading advertisements across the country.

The strict guidelines issued by the Supreme Court highlight how important it is that the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, be implemented vigorously. A concerted attempt to stop the spread of deceptive medical advertisements is indicated by the court’s emphasis on creating efficient grievance redressal procedures, designating authorized personnel, and raising awareness among law enforcement agencies. The judiciary seeks to protect public health and make sure that customers are not duped by false promises by holding publishers, advertisers, and even endorsers responsible. The court’s actions demonstrate the judiciary’s dedication to protecting people’s fundamental right to health and making sure that laws are properly enforced to safeguard their well-being.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com