Self-regulation in the pharmaceutical sector has failed to curb unethical marketing. Critically examine the case for giving statutory backing to the UCPMP.

The Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2024 was issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP). It replaced the 2015 code and bans gifts, monetary benefits and hospitality to doctors and their families [1]. It is an executive code, not a law. In October 2026, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to form an expert committee on statutory regulation [6]. The case for a law is strong, but the law must be carefully drafted.

Why self-regulation has failed

• Industry judges itself: Complaints first go to Ethics Committees run by pharma associations. Only appeals reach the DoP [1]. Under the 2015 code, the DoP simply forwarded complaints to the associations [2].
• Weak penalties: The code's sanctions are limited to a reprimand, recovery of the benefit and a corrective statement in the media [4]. These cost little next to marketing budgets.
• Scale of the problem: Income Tax searches in 2022 found that one pharma group had given doctors freebies of about ₹1,000 crore [3].
• Only one side is punished: Medical ethics rules can cost a doctor their registration for accepting gifts [5]. The company that gave the gift faces no comparable legal penalty.

The case for statutory backing

• Article 21 (right to health): Gifts distort what doctors prescribe and raise patients' out-of-pocket costs.
• Deterrence: A law can set fines and penalties that apply to the company, not just the doctor.
• Accountability: A statutory regulator would replace industry-only committees.

Concerns and limits

• Legitimate spending: Drug samples and continuing medical education are useful. Loose terms like "freebie" would lead to court cases.
• Overlapping regulators: The DoP, CDSCO and NMC share this area. A law that does not name one enforcing body will not change much.
• Compliance cost: Small firms may find heavy compliance rules a burden.
• A law alone is not enough: Without independent audits and public disclosure, a statute could stay as weak on paper as the code.

Statutory backing is therefore needed, but it should be precise. The law should define clearly what spending is allowed, set penalties for companies matching those for doctors, and name one independent regulator that publishes its audits. The SC-ordered committee can turn a voluntary promise into enforceable accountability. That would protect the right to health under Article 21 and support SDG 3.