NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the Union government for its inaction against Patanjali Ayurved over misleading advertisements. The court also ordered Patanjani MD Acharya Balakrishna and its co-founder, Yoga guru Ramdev, to place the public apology published in newspapers on record within two days.
The top court emphasised the importance of consumer welfare and truthfulness in advertising during the hearing of the IMA's case against Patanjali, stressing the public's right to accurate information regarding potentially misleading advertisements.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah pulled up the Central government for its failure to invoke Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, against Patanjali Ayurved for broadcasting and publishing misleading advertisements in print and electronic media.
Notbaly, Rule 170, was introduced in 2018 to regulate inappropriate advertisements of AYUSH medicines: Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani. However, the central government revoked this rule last year.
Ramdev and Balakrishna told the Supreme Court that they have issued an unqualified apology in newspapers for the lapses on their part in the misleading advertisements case.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the defendants, informed the bench that a public apology had been published in 67 papers across the nation yesterday, costing "tens of lakhs." He said that additional advertisements shall be issued by them, tendering an unqualified apology for the lapses on their part.
However, the bench questioned whether the apology issued by them in newspapers yesterday was as prominent as their advertisements.
The bench went on to acknowledge the unqualified apologies issued by Patanjali, Ramdev, and Balkrishna in newspapers yesterday but noted that they hadn't been presented in court. It ordered the defendants to submit the on-record apology published in newspapers within two days for the bench to examine its size.
The apex court took into account all the submissions and posted the matter for further hearing on April 30.
SC expands misleading ads case to include FMCG firms
Expanding the scope of its hearing in the Patanjali Ayurved case, the Supreme Court also took a stern view of misleading advertisements by FMCG firms and asked three Union ministries to inform it about the steps they have taken to curb the practice, which takes the "public for a ride" and adversely affects their health.
It said the issue was not limited to Patanjali but extended to all Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) firms that have been issuing "misleading advertisements and taking the public for a ride, in particular affecting the health of babies, school-going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation."
"We must clarify that we are not here to gun for a particular party or a particular agency or a particular authority. This is a PIL, and in the larger interest of the consumers, public should know which way they are going and how and why they can be misled, and how authorities are acting to prevent it," the bench said.
The court asked the Union ministries of consumer affairs, information and broadcasting, and information technology to explain what action they have taken to prevent the misuse of consumer laws.
It also sought an explanation from the Centre over an August 2023 letter issued by the Ministry of Ayush to the licencing authorities of all states and Union Territories and drug controllers of AYUSH, asking them not to initiate any action under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Meanwhile, the top court, during Tuesday's hearing, took a strong exception to the Indian Medical Association (IMA) for alleged unethical acts where medicines are prescribed, which are "expensive and unnecessary," and said the association also needs to "put its house in order."
"The petitioner (IMA) needs to put its own house in order regarding alleged unethical acts of the organisation where medicines are prescribed, which is expensive and unnecessary," said the bench.
The apex court asked the IMA, the petitioner in the case, that wherever there is misuse of the position by the IMA to prescribe expensive medicines and the line of treatment, it needs "closer examination."
It further told IMA that while it is pointing fingers at Patanjali, four fingers are pointing at them. "Your (IMA) doctors are also endorsing medicines in the allopathic field; if that's happening, why should we not turn the beam at you?" the apex court pointed out.
Notably, the top court has rejected repeated apologies from Patanjali.
It had twice rejected the second affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali Ayurved in the contempt case over the publication of misleading medical advertisements, allegedly violating the undertaking given to the Court for not publishing such advertisements.
"You need to respect the rule of law. The law is equal for everyone," the bench had observed earlier and asked Ramdev to follow it.
In prior hearings, the apex court had also pulled up the Uttrakhand government for not taking enough action against Patanjali Ayurved for violation of the law.
"You kept twiddling your thumb when the law was being violated with impunity. The concerned officers must be taken into task," the bench had slammed the state government.
Patanjali Ayurved and Ramdev had assured the top court that it would not violate any law in the future, especially those related to the advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it.
The top court was hearing the petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), alleging that this was completely wrong, improper and misinformation on the part of Patanjali Ayurveda's advertisements, which claimed to cure certain diseases, including high blood pressure, diabetes and asthma. "It is completely wrong to advertise such kinds of diseases and to cure such diseases," the IMA had said in its plea.
The apex court, in its earlier order, restrained a temporary ban—including print and TV—on Patanjali medicine advertisements.
Relying on the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954, the apex court, in its order, restrained Patanjali Ayurved from advertising its products relating to diseases or disorders.
(With additional inputs from PTI, ANI, Online Desk)
