Department of Pharmaceuticals Constitutes Committee to Review Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices

1. At a Glance

• The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, has set up a 3-member Committee to review the rules on pharmaceutical marketing practices. It will recommend ways to strengthen oversight, monitoring and enforcement against unethical practices. [1]
• The current rulebook is the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) 2024. It replaced UCPMP 2015, which was a voluntary, industry-led self-regulatory code. [1]
• Why it matters: the Committee may suggest "regulatory/statutory" measures and a legal framework. That could move the system from self-regulation towards legally binding rules. This links to GS-II (health, governance) and GS-IV (conflict of interest, ethics in medicine). [1]

2. Why in the News

• 23 Oct 2026: PIB Delhi announced the Committee to examine the UCPMP framework and recommend stronger oversight. [1]
• Chairperson: Dr. M. Srinivas, Member, NITI Aayog. Members: Smt. Preeti Sudan (Former Union Health Secretary) and Dr. Naresh Trehan (CMD, Medanta). [1]
• Deadline: it must report within 2 months of its first meeting, after the required consultations. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• 2013: Newspapers reported heavy promotional spending on doctors. In response, DoP prepared a draft UCPMP to be adopted voluntarily "in the first instance". [5]
• 01.01.2015: UCPMP 2015 came into operation as a voluntary code. [4][1]
• 2022: In a reply to Parliament, the government said the matter was before the Supreme Court. A writ petition had been filed by federations of medical and sales representatives. [4]
• Dec 2022: A Rajya Sabha question asked whether pharma companies give incentives to doctors and what transparency mechanisms exist. [8]
• 12.03.2024: DoP notified UCPMP 2024, which superseded UCPMP 2015. [2][3][1]
• Sept 2025: UCPMP 2024 was amended. [2]
• 23 Oct 2026: The review Committee was constituted. [1]

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Nodal body	Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers (not MoHFW) [1]
Code in force	UCPMP 2024 (notified 12.03.2024; amended Sept 2025) [2][1]
Predecessor	UCPMP 2015, voluntary and industry-led, in operation from 01.01.2015 [1][4]
Purpose	Prevent unethical marketing by pharma companies and ensure products are promoted responsibly [3]
Key prohibition	No gifts, monetary benefits or hospitality to doctors and their family members [3]
Institutions	Ethics Committees for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (ECPMPs); companies must appoint Ethics Officers [2]
Grievance redressal	Two-layer complaint adjudication; appeals go to DoP [3]
Compliance tools	Independent, random or risk-based audits; self-declaration of compliance; disclosure of spending on conferences, seminars and workshops [3][6]
Penalties	Corrective statement in the media for non-compliant promotional material, plus possible action under existing laws [3]
Committee	Chair: Dr. M. Srinivas (NITI Aayog); Members: Preeti Sudan, Dr. Naresh Trehan; report within 2 months of first meeting [1]
Terms of Reference (ToR)	(a) holistic review of unethical practices; (b) check how well current monitoring and enforcement work, with a focus on transparency, accountability and compliance; (c) suggest regulatory/statutory measures and a legal framework; (d) consult stakeholders and experts; (e) any other relevant issue [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• From 2015 the UCPMP was voluntary. ToR (c) now explicitly asks whether statutory backing is needed, which points to the limits of self-regulation. [1]
• Litigation by medical and sales representatives' federations has kept the code's adequacy before the Supreme Court. [4]

Ethical / Governance

• Gifts and hospitality to doctors create a conflict of interest. They can distort prescribing and break the trust patients place in doctors. [3]
• ToR (b) focuses on transparency, accountability and effective compliance. This suggests the current enforcement gaps are the main concern. [1]
• Under the 2024 Code, appeals go to DoP, so the government is part of enforcement rather than leaving it entirely to industry. [3]

Administrative

• Industry self-declarations and industry-level ECPMPs depend heavily on companies being honest. Audits are the main check. [2][3][6]
• The Committee mixes policy (NITI Aayog), health administration (former Health Secretary) and clinical practice (a hospital CMD). Its ToR also require stakeholder consultation. [1]

Social / Economic

• Unethical promotion can raise patients' out-of-pocket costs by pushing doctors towards costlier or unnecessary drugs. This is an inference from the Code's stated aim of responsible promotion. [3]
• Parliament has repeatedly questioned the government on whether incentives to doctors are transparent. [8][4]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• Sept 2025: UCPMP 2024 amended. [2]
• July 2026: In PIB/parliamentary material, the government restated the 2024 Code's framework: ECPMPs, Ethics Officers and compliance mechanisms. [2]
• 23 Oct 2026: The Srinivas Committee was constituted with 5 ToR and a 2-month deadline. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• The Committee was set up by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. [1]
• Chairperson: Dr. M. Srinivas, Member, NITI Aayog. [1]
• Members: Preeti Sudan (Former Union Health Secretary) and Dr. Naresh Trehan (CMD, Medanta). [1]
• Report due within two months of the first meeting, not from the date the Committee was constituted. [1]
• UCPMP was introduced in 2015 as a voluntary, industry-led self-regulatory mechanism. [1]
• UCPMP 2015 was in operation from 01.01.2015. [4]
• The draft code was first prepared in 2013, to be adopted voluntarily in the first instance. [5]
• UCPMP 2024 was notified on 12 March 2024 and superseded UCPMP 2015. [2]
• UCPMP 2024 was amended in September 2025. [2]
• The 2024 Code bars gifts, monetary benefits and hospitality to doctors and their family members. [3]
• ECPMP = Ethics Committee for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices. [2]
• Pharma companies must appoint Ethics Officers. [2]
• The 2024 Code has a two-tier complaint mechanism with appeal to DoP. [3]
• Penalty includes a corrective statement in the media for non-compliant promotional material. [3]
• Companies must self-declare adherence and disclose spending on conferences, seminars and workshops. [6]

8. Why a Code Without a Law Has Weak Teeth

• Under the old code, the industry judged itself
• When the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) got a complaint against a company under the voluntary UCPMP, it did not act on it. It sent the complaint on to the pharma industry associations [9].

• Those associations are made up of the same companies being complained about. A member company was being judged by its own trade body.

• The 2024 Code fixed the appeal, not the punishment

• Appeals now go to DoP, so the government has the final word [3].
• But the penalty the Code itself names is mild: a corrective statement in the media for misleading promotional material. Anything heavier must come from "existing laws" [3].

• So a company that pays for a doctor's foreign trip faces no fine, licence action or ban written into the Code. Some other law has to apply.

• Why ToR (c) matters

• The UCPMP is a code issued by a department, not an Act passed by Parliament. A court or regulator cannot easily punish someone for breaking it on its own.
• ToR (c) asks for "regulatory/statutory measures and a legal framework" [1]. In effect, the government admits that a code with no legal force has reached its limit.

9. The Doctor Who Takes the Gift Answers to a Different Regulator

• A bribe has a giver and a taker, but the UCPMP covers only the giver
• The UCPMP binds pharma companies [3].

• Doctors who accept gifts are governed by separate rules: the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Complaints against a doctor go to the respective State Medical Council [7].

• Two ministries, two complaint routes, no link between them

• DoP sits under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. Medical councils sit in the health system [1][7].

• Suppose DoP finds that a company gave gifts. Nothing in the Code requires that the doctors who took them be reported to their medical council. The company may face a penalty while the doctor faces nothing, or the other way round.

• What the Committee can do about it

• The Committee includes a former Union Health Secretary (Preeti Sudan) and a practising hospital head (Dr. Naresh Trehan) [1]. That makes it well placed to recommend one shared process.
• A workable step: DoP should be required to send every proven UCPMP violation to the National Medical Commission and the State Medical Council for action against the doctors involved.

10. Who Pushed for a Mandatory Code, and Who Stayed Silent

• The push came from inside the industry's workforce
• The Supreme Court case asking for a mandatory code (Writ Petition No. 323/2021) was filed by federations of medical and sales representatives [9][4].

• These are the field staff who are asked to deliver the gifts and meet sales targets. They have first-hand knowledge of the practice.

• Patients have not been heard

• In a parliamentary reply, the government said it had received no recent requests from civil society or patient groups to make the code mandatory [9].

• Patients carry the cost of brand-driven prescribing, but they cannot see what goes on between a company and a doctor, so they rarely complain.

• Why this matters for the Committee's consultations

• ToR (d) requires stakeholder consultation [1]. If only companies, doctors' bodies and sales staff take part, the patient's view will be missing.
• The Committee should invite patient-rights and consumer groups to the consultations.

11. The Case Against a New Law, and Why It Only Half Holds

• The strongest objection
• India already has laws that touch this area: the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Income Tax Act, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against misleading advertisements.

• A new statute could add a fresh layer of inspections and paperwork. Small drug makers would feel it most, because they cannot afford large compliance teams.

• What is right about it

• Duplication is a real risk. A company could be tried for the same gift under three laws by three agencies, and still not be punished quickly.

• Why it does not settle the question

• None of these existing laws is built to deal with the gift itself. The Code's own text sends serious action to "existing laws" [3], yet complaints were for years passed back to industry associations [9]. The existing laws were available all that time and the problem remained.

• A middle path

• Do not set up a new regulator. Give the UCPMP legal backing inside an existing Act, with clear fines, and let DoP enforce it through the appeal role it already has [3].

12. What the WHO Rulebook Asks For That India's Code Does Not

• The global benchmark is from 1988
• The World Health Assembly adopted the WHO Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion through resolution WHA41.17 [10].

• It treats "promotion" as every informational and persuasive activity by a manufacturer meant to drive prescribing or purchase [11]. That reaches well beyond gifts.

• Generic names on every promotional item

• The WHO criteria require promotional material to show the international nonproprietary name (the generic, chemical name of the drug) next to the brand name, along with the dose of each active ingredient [10].

• If every brochure in a doctor's clinic carried the generic name, it would be easier to prescribe generics, which supports schemes like Jan Aushadhi.

• Self-regulation has fallen short in rich countries too

• A WHO review found that inappropriate drug promotion remains a problem in both developing and developed countries [11].
• So India's weak results under a voluntary code are not unusual. Codes without enforcement have fallen short in other countries as well, which supports ToR (c).

13. Anchors for Answers

• Report/Committee: Srinivas Committee (DoP, 23 Oct 2026), set up to review the UCPMP and suggest a statutory framework [1]
• Law/Case: Writ Petition (C) No. 323/2021 in the Supreme Court, filed by medical and sales representatives' federations seeking a mandatory code [9]
• Law/Case: Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, the doctor-side rules, enforced by State Medical Councils [7]
• Comparison: WHO Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion (WHA41.17, 1988), which require generic names on all promotional material [10]
• Scheme: PMBJP (Jan Aushadhi): cheap generic medicines, an alternative to brand-led prescribing that marketing gifts encourage

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Issues relating to the development and management of the social sector and services relating to Health; government policies and interventions; statutory, regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies.
• GS-III: Indian economy: industrial policy (pharma sector).
• GS-IV: Ethics in public and private relationships; conflict of interest; corporate governance; codes of conduct.
• Question stems: 1. 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. (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. Critically evaluate the institutional mechanisms under UCPMP 2024 for ensuring ethical interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare professionals. (GS-II, 10 marks) 3. Gifts to doctors by pharmaceutical companies are not just a regulatory problem but an ethical one. Discuss with reference to conflict of interest in the medical profession. (GS-IV)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• National Medical Commission (NMC): professional conduct regulations. These are the doctor-side counterpart to the UCPMP, which governs the pharma side.
• Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 / CDSCO. This is the existing statutory drug regulator, a possible home for any statutory UCPMP.
• Drug pricing: DPCO and NPPA. These also sit under the Department of Pharmaceuticals and are linked to affordability and out-of-pocket spending.
• Jan Aushadhi Scheme (PMBJP) and generic prescribing. These are the counter-strategy to brand-driven promotion.
• Income Tax Act: disallowing freebies to doctors as business expenditure. This is the fiscal enforcement angle on pharma freebies.
• Production Linked Incentive (PLI) for pharma / "Pharmacy of the World." This covers sectoral growth and its link to the industry's credibility.
• Consumer Protection Act, 2019: misleading advertisements. This is a parallel route against misleading promotion.
• WHO Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion. This is the international benchmark.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• National Medical Commission (Polity): It regulates doctors' conduct, the receiving side of gifts that the UCPMP, which binds only pharma firms, does not cover.
• Accountability (Polity): The Committee's terms of reference stress accountability and compliance, since the old voluntary code let industry judge itself.
• Transparency (Polity): Disclosure of spending on doctors and conferences is the code's main tool, and the review targets transparency gaps.
• Consumer protection (Economy): Patients bear the cost of brand-driven prescribing, and the Consumer Protection Act is a parallel route against misleading promotion.
• Corporate governance (Economy): UCPMP is a code of conduct for company behaviour, enforced through Ethics Officers, audits and self-declarations.
• Civil society (Polity): Patient and consumer groups have not pushed for a mandatory code, so their voice is missing from consultations.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Wrong ministry: UCPMP is administered by DoP, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, not MoHFW, CDSCO or NMC. [1]
• Chair confusion: the Chair is Dr. M. Srinivas (NITI Aayog). Preeti Sudan, the former Health Secretary, is a member, not the Chair. [1]
• Year traps: draft in 2013, voluntary code in 2015, UCPMP 2024 notified on 12 March 2024, amended Sept 2025, Committee constituted on 23 Oct 2026. [5][4][2][1]
• Status trap: UCPMP 2024 strengthened the implementation framework, but the Committee's ToR still ask whether statutory measures are needed. Do not assume the code is already an Act. [1]
• Deadline trap: the 2 months run from the first meeting, not from constitution. [1]