Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Stand On Recognising AYUSH Doctors As “Registered Medical Practitioners”: What It Means For Healthcare And Health Communication In India

Spread the Message

Read Time:6 Minute, 58 Second

What Has The Supreme Court Asked?

The Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the Union Ministries of Law, Health and AYUSH on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking recognition of AYUSH doctors as “Registered Medical Practitioners” under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.deccanchronicle+1
The petition also asks the Centre to set up an expert committee to update the law’s provisions on health advertisements, arguing that current rules unfairly limit AYUSH practitioners from sharing scientifically backed information about serious diseases.pharma.economictimes.

Law, AYUSH And Advertisements

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 was enacted to curb misleading and exaggerated claims about drugs and “magic remedies,” particularly for serious or incurable conditions.indiacode+1
Section 3 of the Act prohibits advertisements for drugs related to specified diseases and disorders, while Section 2(cc) defines a “registered medical practitioner” primarily as someone qualified and registered under medical laws such as the Indian Medical Council framework or corresponding state registration laws.

AYUSH covers traditional and complementary systems of medicine officially recognised by the Government of India: Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy.

AYUSH practitioners are registered with separate national and state councils, and over the past decade they have increasingly been integrated into public health programmes, including primary health centres and national health missions, especially in rural and underserved areas.economictimes.

The PIL: What Is Being Asked And Why?

According to reports, the PIL has been filed by a law student and his father, represented by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, and seeks a declaration that AYUSH doctors fall within the definition of “registered medical practitioners” in Section 2(cc) of the 1954 Act.
The petition argues that because AYUSH doctors are excluded from certain exceptions in Section 14 of the Act, a blanket ban effectively prevents them from advertising or even publicising legitimate, evidence-based treatments for serious conditions, thereby limiting the public’s right to accurate health information.

The plea further contends that Section 3(d) of the Act, which restricts advertisements for specified serious diseases, fails to distinguish between fraudulent, misleading claims and truthful, scientific information about legally recognised AYUSH therapies.pharma.economictimes.
It calls the law “archaic” and says that, in its current form, it disproportionately curtails the right to information about diagnosis, prevention and treatment of chronic and life‑threatening diseases, especially when the treatments are backed by regulatory approval or clinical evidence.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has issued notices to the concerned ministries, signalling that the questions raised have broader legal and policy implications that merit a formal response from the Centre.deccanchronicle+1
The Court has not yet ruled on whether AYUSH doctors are “registered medical practitioners” under the Act; at this stage, it has only sought the government’s stand and may later decide whether to interpret the law or recommend legislative changes.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to examine parity between AYUSH and allopathic doctors. In a separate set of cases relating to retirement age and service conditions, a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai referred the issue of whether AYUSH doctors can be treated on par with MBBS doctors for benefits like retirement age and pay scales to a larger bench, citing conflicting earlier judgments.
In that matter, the Court observed that while AYUSH and allopathic doctors practise different systems, both provide patient care, and any classification between them must be reasonable and not discriminatory; however, it also stressed that “unequals” cannot automatically be treated as equals for all purposes, and called for an authoritative ruling.

Key Issues: Public Health, Patient Safety And Free Flow Of Information

The PIL highlights a tension between two public health priorities: protecting people from misleading health claims and ensuring access to reliable, system‑agnostic medical information.pharma.economictimes.indiatimes+1
The 1954 Act was designed at a time when “miracle cure” advertisements for chronic and incurable diseases were common, and it took a strict, often disease‑wise ban approach rather than a nuanced, evidence‑based assessment of specific products or practitioners.

If AYUSH doctors are recognised as “registered medical practitioners” under this law, certain types of professional communication and advertising—currently barred in relation to serious diseases—could become permissible for them under the same exceptions that apply to allopathic doctors, provided other legal and ethical standards are met.
Supporters of this change argue that AYUSH systems already operate within a regulated framework and that patients should be allowed to access accurate, non‑deceptive information about available AYUSH treatments for conditions like arthritis, diabetes or chronic pain, particularly where guidelines or clinical evidence exist.

However, regulators and many public health experts emphasise that loosening restrictions without robust safeguards could lead to an uptick in aggressive marketing for unproven or inadequately tested therapies for cancers, heart disease, infertility or other serious conditions, which may delay necessary evidence‑based care.
Globally, health authorities such as the World Health Organization advise that traditional and complementary treatments should be integrated into health systems only when supported by sound safety and efficacy data, clear indications, and appropriate regulation of advertising and claims.economictimes.

Expert Perspectives

Hypothetical legal and medical experts note three main concerns for policy makers:

Definition clarity: Any change to who qualifies as a “registered medical practitioner” under the Act would need to align with existing registration laws for AYUSH professionals and avoid overlap or confusion with MBBS registration systems.
Evidence thresholds: Regulators would likely need to define what counts as “truthful” and “scientifically backed” in the context of AYUSH, including the role of clinical trials, pharmacovigilance data and traditional use documentation.economictimes.
Monitoring and enforcement: Strengthened mechanisms to detect and penalise misleading or exaggerated claims—regardless of system of medicine—would be essential if more advertising flexibility is granted.

Public health clinicians also point out that patients often interpret any “doctor‑endorsed” advertisement as a sign of full scientific validation, which increases the responsibility to keep claims cautious, specific and in line with regulatory approvals.
From a health‑communication standpoint, clearer, system‑neutral rules—focused on evidence and patient safety rather than on whether a practitioner is allopathic or AYUSH—may offer a more future‑proof solution.

What This Means For Patients And Practitioners Right Now

For now, nothing has changed in the law: AYUSH doctors remain governed by existing advertising restrictions under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and related rules, and the Supreme Court has only initiated a process to hear arguments and obtain the Centre’s view.
Patients should continue to treat any medical advertisement—whether allopathic or AYUSH—with caution, paying attention to red flags such as guaranteed cures, “100% results,” or promises for serious conditions without clear medical supervision.

Health‑conscious readers can use a few practical steps when encountering AYUSH‑related claims:

Check whether the practitioner is registered with an official AYUSH council, and whether the clinic or product has the necessary state or national approvals.
Look for whether claims are framed realistically (e.g., “may help manage symptoms” or “adjunct to standard care”) instead of absolute cures, especially for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, infertility or chronic infections.
Discuss any AYUSH treatment you are considering with your regular healthcare provider, especially if you have chronic conditions, take multiple medicines, or are pregnant, to avoid harmful interactions or delays in proven treatment.economictimes.

For AYUSH practitioners, the case highlights the growing pressure to update mid‑20th‑century advertising laws in a digital era where health information spreads quickly across television, print, and social media.pharma.economictimes.
Depending on how the Court and the government respond, future regulations may move towards a more evidence‑driven, disclosure‑rich model that allows responsible communication of both AYUSH and allopathic options while maintaining strong protections against misleading or harmful claims.

Medical Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare professionals before making any health-related decisions or changes to your treatment plan. The information presented here is based on current research and expert opinions, which may evolve as new evidence emerges.

References

“Can AYUSH doctors be declared as Registered Medical Practitioners? Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response.” Medical Dialogues, 11 January 2026.medicaldialogues