 "Supreme Court, SC")
Supreme Court, SC (Photo: Shutterstock)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily halted a notification issued by the Ministry of Ayush that omitted Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. This rule is crucial as it prohibits misleading advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs.
The bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, criticised the ministry’s action, stating that it directly contradicted the court’s previous order issued on May 7, 2024.
Supreme Court’s May order on misleading ads
In its earlier order, the Supreme Court had taken a firm stance against misleading advertisements, requiring advertisers to submit a self-declaration before broadcasting or publishing ads, in line with the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. The May order aimed to ensure transparency and protect consumers from potentially harmful and deceptive claims.
Despite this clear directive, the Ministry of Ayush issued a notification on July 1, 2024, omitting Rule 170, which the court found “perplexing”, given its explicit instructions just weeks earlier.
“Instead of withdrawing the letter dated August 29, 2023, the ministry chose to issue a notification that directly contradicts our directions,” the bench observed. Consequently, the SC stayed the notification’s effect until further orders.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the Centre, said that he would submit an affidavit to clarify the government’s position on the matter. Previously, the Centre had defended its August 2023 letter, which instructed state and Union Territory licensing authorities not to take action against entities violating Rule 170, arguing that this was a temporary measure while the final notification was under process.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Ministry of Ayush’s actions is part of an ongoing case initiated by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) in 2022.
The IMA’s plea raised concerns about misleading advertisements and false claims, particularly targeting statements made by yoga guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved during the Covid-19 pandemic. The IMA accused Ramdev of undermining the Covid-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine by promoting unverified treatments and disparaging allopathic medicine as “stupid and bankrupt”.
Supreme Court on Patanjali misleading ads case
The Supreme Court has previously admonished Ramdev and his associate Acharya Balkrishna for their misleading advertisements, particularly surrounding the promotion of “Coronil” as a cure for Covid-19 — a claim that contradicted its approval as an immunity booster. Although a contempt case against Ramdev and Balkrishna was dismissed in August, the court issued a stern warning, emphasising that future violations would not be tolerated.
In addition to these proceedings, the Delhi High Court had earlier directed Ramdev and Balkrishna to retract their statements about Coronil within three days, warning of further legal consequences if they failed to comply.
The Supreme Court, in its latest ruling, reiterated the importance of adherence to legal standards and transparency in advertising, particularly concerning public health.
(With agency inputs)
First Published: Aug 27 2024 | 3:22 PM IST
