Anonymous Complaint No Bar to Pharma Code Action by Department of Pharmaceuticals: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court dismissed AbbVie’s challenge to a reprimand for sponsoring doctors’ foreign trips and allowed income tax and Registrar of Companies proceedings to continue independently under their own statutes.

The Karnataka High Court has held that the bar on anonymous complaints in the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2024 (UCPMP 2024) governs complaints lodged with an industry association’s ethics committee, and does not stop the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DOP) from verifying information it receives through a special audit under Clause 10.7 [Abbvie Healthcare India Private Limited v. Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3370-HC(Karnataka)-CORP].

Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the company’s writ petition against an order dated 23 Dec 2024 of the Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices (Apex Committee), which reprimanded it for sponsoring trips to Paris and Monaco for 30 healthcare professionals. The DOP received an unsigned complaint on 21 May 2024, forwarded it to the association, ordered a special audit and placed the matter before the Apex Committee. The association’s Ethics Committee had found no irregularity on 20 Sep 2024.

The company argued that Clause 10.4 forbids entertaining anonymous complaints, that the Apex Committee could act only on an appeal against the Ethics Committee’s decision, and that income tax summonses and a Registrar of Companies (ROC) notice flowed from the reprimand.

The Court held that Clause 10.7 creates a separate channel for complaints received by the DOP, to which Clauses 10.3 and 10.4 do not automatically apply. The Apex Committee acted on the DOP’s independent reference and did not sit in appeal or review over the Ethics Committee. The company had received the audit memos and report and was given a hearing.

On the other proceedings, the Court noted that the Apex Committee had only requested the Central Board of Direct Taxes to evaluate tax liability, and a request does not compel the receiving authority to act. The summonses under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not refer to the reprimand and sought wider financial records. Whether the expenditure is deductible is for the tax authorities to decide.

The ROC notice was upheld because the inquiry rested on a Central Government order under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court directed that the inquiry follow that provision strictly, with allegations given in writing and a reasonable hearing, and allowed the company four weeks from receipt of the judgment to reply.

2026-juristway.com-3370-HC(Karnataka)-CORP