Plea to Madras HC CJ to curb misleading ads on magical cure

The judge was hearing petitions by a drug manufacturer, challenging the prosecution launched by the jurisdictional drugs inspector.

Published: 14th August 2022 04:48 AM  |   Last Updated: 14th August 2022 04:48 AM   |  A+A-

ayurveda, ayurvedic medicines

Representational Image. (File Photo)

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: Justice RMT Teekaa Raman of the Madras High Court has referred a matter relating to the powers of Drug Inspector (Allopathy) to prosecute firms committing offences in Siddha and Unani field and requested the CJ to decide on bringing in a mechanism to regulate misleading online advertisements luring the public with the promise of magical cure.

The judge was hearing petitions by a drug manufacturer, challenging the prosecution launched by the jurisdictional drugs inspector. The matter relates to a 2015 advertisement published in Health Choice, a monthly magazine, regarding a drug UTRAVIT syrup 200ml. The advertisement claimed that the drug cured menstrual disorders and diseases/disorders of the uterus.

Noticing the advertisement, the then jurisdictional drugs inspector sent a show-cause memo to the editor of the magazine as it was an objectionable advertisement as per the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1955 (Special Act).Later another memo was sent to the drug manufacturing company Dharma Pharmacy Private Limited located at Sriperumbudhur. The drug inspector of Mylapore range filed a private complaint before the metropolitan magistrate court in Saidapet.

The drug manufacturer filed two petitions before the high court, saying the drugs inspector (general) had no power to prosecute in view of the amendment made in the subsequent years and also relied upon the April 11, 2022 judgment by Justice M Govindaraj in another case.

Hearing the present petitions, Justice Teekaa Raman held that the alleged occurrence is prior to the amendment made to section 33 (c) of Drug and Cosmetics Act, and therefore, it is doubtful whether the petitioner can claim the advantage of the amendment.

The judge added that the prosecution launched by the drugs inspector cannot be termed as want of authority in the absence of any amendment to the Special Act. Since another judge had ruled that Drug Inspector (Allopathy) has no power to initiate prosecution in respect of offences regarding Siddha and Unani, Justice Teekaa Raman referred the matter for consideration by a division bench.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp