The Supreme Court closed the misleading advertisements case against Patanjali, observing that once manufacturing of a product is permitted, its advertisement becomes a natural business practice, providing relief to the company after months of legal scrutiny.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) petition against Patanjali Ayurveda concerning misleading advertisement claims related to traditional medicine.
The court ruled that advertising is a natural aspect of business once manufacturing is authorized, thereby overturning its previous decision that imposed stricter checks and approval requirements.
Justice BV Nagarathna while closing the case, stated,
“Once you permit manufacture, then advertisement of that product will be a natural business practice,”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, argued that an existing legal framework already prohibits false medical claims, making Rule 170 redundant.
He remarked,
“There is already a statutory mechanism in place…let us not doubt the intelligence of the common man,”
Rule 170 had mandated pre-approval for advertisements related to traditional medicine.
During the hearings, Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, representing an intervenor, urged the court to uphold the status quo of its earlier stay against the Ministry of AYUSH’s notification that removed Rule 170.
He cautioned against the risks of misleading advertisements, stating,
“There are large number of people who are gullible…In Ayurveda you can come up and say this is the cure of this disease, people will be lured.”
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, acting as Amicus Curiae, noted that significant developments had occurred since the stay issued in August 2024. He mentioned that states had been enforcing the rule and expressed concern that the notification repealing Rule 170 suggested a shift toward aligning traditional medicine with allopathic practices.
The division’s decision to close contempt proceedings against Patanjali’s promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, allowed the company to proceed without further legal hindrances after they issued repeated apologies.
While Rule 170 aimed to limit exaggerated claims, its removal indicates a trend toward more lenient advertising regulations.
This shift has ignited discussions regarding the balance between consumer protection and business freedoms.
In its concluding order, the Supreme Court noted that the relief sought had been granted and that the case no longer required further examination.
The order concluded,
“It is not in dispute that the relief sought for has been achieved in as much as by various orders…Hence the writ petition stands disposed,”
The court emphasized the necessity of balancing consumer protection with business practices, highlighting the importance of vigilance in advertising standards.