Gifts to Doctors: Supreme Court Order on Pharma Marketing | CLAT Explainer

VIDEO EXPLAINER | 14 OCTOBER 2026

On 8 October 2026, the Supreme Court of India passed an order in Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives Associations of India v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 323 of 2021, reported as 2026 INSC 1097). The Court directed the Union to constitute a committee to examine and recommend whether pharmaceutical marketing needs statutory regulation. The committee is to complete its work within two months, and the matter is listed next on 29 January 2027. The order did not frame a mandatory code and did not make the existing marketing code binding. Until the committee reports and a decision is taken, the voluntary UCPMP 2024 continues to govern the field.

1. What is unethical pharma marketing?

Unethical pharma marketing means persuading doctors to prescribe particular medicines by offering them gifts, travel, hospitality or cash. The concern is simple: when a prescription is influenced by a benefit to the prescriber, the patient may end up with more medicines than needed, or with costlier brands, and the cost of the inducement itself travels into the price of the medicine.

2. Two different rulebooks: one for doctors, one for companies

For doctors, the rule is in law. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, in clause 6.8 (amended on 10 December 2009), bar doctors from receiving gifts, travel facilities, hospitality and cash or monetary grants from the pharmaceutical industry. The National Medical Commission’s 2023 regulations for registered medical practitioners were put in abeyance on 23 August 2023, so the 2002 Regulations continue to apply as if made under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

For companies, there is only a code. The Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) 2024 was issued on 12 March 2024 by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. It bars gifts, travel and cash or monetary grants to healthcare professionals and their families. But it is a voluntary code, not a law. At a hearing on 18 November 2025, the bench observed that the code, though described as mandatory, was “almost voluntary”, as there was no government control.

3. The petition: medical representatives go to the Supreme Court

The petition was filed in 2021 under Article 32, which allows a person to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Notice was issued on 11 March 2022. The lead petitioner, FMRAI, is the national trade union of medical representatives, the very people who carry pharma marketing to doctors.

Their argument was about the gap between the two rulebooks. The existing regime, they said, penalises only doctors for accepting gifts and benefits, while companies offering such inducements face no statutory consequences. The harm, they argued, falls on patients through irrational prescribing and a push towards high-priced brands, which affects the right to health, recognised as part of the right to life under Article 21.

4. The 2022 tax ruling

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has looked at gifts to doctors. On 22 February 2022, in a tax case, it held that the cost of freebies given to doctors is not deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1), Explanation 1, of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court also noted that the cost of such freebies is usually factored into the price of the drug, creating what it called a “perpetual publicly injurious cycle”.

5. What the 8 October 2026 order says

The Court did not write a code itself. It directed the Union to constitute a committee to examine the issue and recommend whether statutory regulation of pharma marketing is needed. In the words reported from the order, “The committee will consider the suggestions and representations and give its recommendations to the Union.” The committee has two months to complete its work, the Union is to file a compliance affidavit, and the case is listed next on 29 January 2027. Meanwhile, UCPMP 2024 continues to apply.

6. Why it matters

The case asks a basic question of regulatory design: is a voluntary code enough when the rule for doctors is binding law and the rule for companies is not? The committee’s recommendations, and the Union’s decision on them, will now shape the answer.

Sources

Case note on 2026 INSC 1097 (Lawtext); LawBeat report on the order of 8 October 2026; LiveLaw report on the hearing of 18 November 2025; SC Observer case page; PTI report on UCPMP 2024 (12 March 2024); Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002; reports and digests (ITAT Online, Taxmann, Medical Dialogues) on the Supreme Court’s tax ruling of 22 February 2022.