Self-regulation has failed to curb unethical pharmaceutical marketing in India. Examine the case for a statutory framework in light of the UCPMP's evolution.

The Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) was drafted in 2013 [1]. It came into force on 1 January 2015 as a voluntary, industry-led code [2]. In October 2026 the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) set up a committee asked to suggest "regulatory/statutory measures" [3]. That is an admission that self-regulation has reached its limit.

Evolution: why self-regulation fell short

• Industry judged itself: under UCPMP 2015, DoP forwarded complaints to industry associations, which are made up of the same firms being accused [2].
• Pressure from insiders: federations of medical and sales representatives asked the Supreme Court for a mandatory code in Writ Petition (C) 323/2021 [2].
• UCPMP 2024 was a partial fix: it was notified on 12 March 2024 and amended in September 2025 [5]. It bans gifts, monetary benefits and hospitality to doctors and their families. It adds audits, self-declarations, disclosure of conference spending and a two-tier complaint system with appeal to DoP [4].
• Still weak teeth: the Code's own penalty is mild, such as a corrective statement in the media. Any serious action depends on "existing laws" [4].

Case for a statutory framework

• Enforceability: a code issued by a department has no legal force of its own. A law can allow fines, licence action and debarment.
• Covering the doctor too: the UCPMP binds only companies. Doctors who accept gifts answer to medical councils under separate ethics regulations [6]. A law could require proven cases to be referred to the NMC.
• Patient welfare: brand-driven prescribing raises out-of-pocket costs. This affects the right to health under Article 21.
• Global benchmark: the WHO Ethical Criteria (WHA41.17, 1988) require the generic name on promotional material [7]. Following them would support Jan Aushadhi.

Counter-view

• New rules could overlap with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. They could also burden small manufacturers. But these laws already existed while the abuse continued.

Way forward

• Give the UCPMP legal backing inside an existing Act, with graded fines, and avoid creating a new regulator.
• Set up a joint DoP–NMC process so both the company and the doctor are held to account.
• Include patient groups in the committee's stakeholder consultations [3].

The UCPMP has moved from a voluntary pledge to a stronger code, but it still has no statutory force, and this shows the limits of self-regulation. A lean law would put penalties on a legal footing, hold both the company and the doctor accountable, and make disclosure the default. This would restore trust in prescriptions and serve Article 47 and SDG 3.