AYUSH vs Allopathy in Supreme Court: SC seeks govt reply on doctors’ legal status
The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Union ministries of Law, Health, and AYUSH on a public interest litigation that raises a key question at the intersection of traditional medicine, modern regulation, and public awareness: should AYUSH practitioners be legally recognised as “registered medical practitioners” under an existing law governing drug advertisements?
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued notices to the Centre after hearing preliminary submissions on the plea, which also challenges the continued relevance of provisions in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
The petition argues that while the law was framed to shield the public from misleading and superstitious claims, it has failed to keep pace with changes in medical science and regulatory oversight—particularly in the case of AYUSH systems such as Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy.
During the hearing, the court took note of the submissions made by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who appeared for the petitioner, a law student. In a light moment, the Chief Justice remarked on the petitioner’s early foray into public interest litigation, before directing that notices be issued to the concerned ministries.
At the heart of the plea is Section 2(cc) of the 1954 Act, which defines “registered medical practitioner.” The petitioner contends that AYUSH doctors—despite being formally trained, licensed, and regulated—remain excluded from this definition, unlike allopathic doctors.
This, the plea says, has direct consequences under Section 3 of the Act, which places a sweeping ban on advertisements related to the treatment of certain diseases.
Also read: NBEMS launches online programme on Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education
According to the petition, this restriction prevents qualified non-allopathic practitioners from even informing the public about the availability of treatments for serious and chronic ailments, regardless of whether such information is factual, evidence-backed, or non-deceptive.
The plea further challenges the blanket nature of the prohibition, arguing that it does not distinguish between fraudulent claims and legitimate dissemination of medical information.
It claims the law, enacted more than seven decades ago, now operates as an “overbroad restraint” on the public’s right to access health-related information.
In addition to seeking legal recognition for AYUSH doctors under the Act, the petitioner has urged the Centre to set up an expert committee to comprehensively review and update the schedule of diseases and conditions listed under the law, aligning it with contemporary scientific understanding and regulatory frameworks.
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter for further hearing after responses are filed by the Centre.