Today, On 7th March, The Supreme Court is set to issue comprehensive directions for enforcing the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. The case stems from a writ petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA). The IMA seeks action against misleading advertisements promoting allopathic medicines. The ruling aims to curb false medical claims and protect public health.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today postponed the hearing on the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) plea regarding misleading claims and advertisements by Patanjali Ayurveda.
The Court stated that an “exhaustive order is necessary for the effective implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act).”
Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that compliance with the Act remains insufficient, despite submissions from various states.
Hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, acting as Amicus Curiae, mentioned that while there has been notable improvement, full compliance has not yet been achieved.
He stated,
“The Chief Secretaries are present, and they have filed additional affidavits. They are not fully compliant, but there is a substantial improvement… One thing that is clear from the affidavits is that Rule 170 is now finally being implemented by the states.”
Chief Secretaries from Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu and Kashmir participated via video conferencing. The Court acknowledged the affidavits submitted by various Chief Secretaries, observing that Rule 170, which regulates misleading advertisements, is now being enforced.
Due to the need for comprehensive guidance on compliance, the Court has rescheduled the next hearing for March 25 at 2 PM and relieved the Chief Secretaries of their appearances.
In a previous hearing on February 24, the Supreme Court had reviewed the compliance status of states such as Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, and Punjab. The Court strongly criticized Jharkhand’s claim that no manufacturers in the state had sought permission under Rule 170, instructing the state to clarify whether any advertisements violating Rule 170(2) were being published.
The Court emphasized that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure compliance and ordered an affidavit to be filed.
Notably, on February 10, the Supreme Court criticized several states for failing to implement its directives concerning misleading advertisements related to both allopathic and alternative medicines. The Court had previously directed the Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir to appear via video conferencing on March 7 to explain their non-compliance.
On January 15, the Supreme Court issued firm directives to ensure that states and Union Territories address misleading claims and advertisements, warning of potential contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for non-compliance.
The Court also closed contempt proceedings against Dr. R. V. Asokan, the President of the IMA, for remarks made during a press interview while the IMA’s plea against Patanjali Ayurveda was pending.
In August 2024, the Bench, led by Justice Hima Kohli, expressed concern over the small font size of an apology published by Dr. Asokan in connection with a contempt notice issued against him.
Earlier, on August 6, the Court had deferred its order on the show cause contempt notice directed at the IMA President.
On August 13, the Supreme Court discharged the contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna, the Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurveda, in the misleading advertisements case, accepting their unconditional apology while warning against future violations of the Court’s orders.
On July 9, the Court emphasized that its previous order for self-declaration submissions from the advertising industry should not be negatively impacted by its directives. The Court also appointed Advocate Shadan Farasat as Amicus Curiae to compile all data presented by the states and bring it to the Court’s attention.
Additionally, the Bench requested the Centre to hold a meeting with stakeholders and senior officials from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to address challenges faced by advertisers.
On May 14, the Court had declined to accept Dr. Asokan’s unconditional apology for his comments made during the ongoing proceedings against Patanjali Ayurveda, highlighting the need for a public apology.
The Court had previously reserved its decision on the contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna and encouraged collaboration between allopathy and Ayurveda.
On May 7, the Bench directed the current IMA President to file an affidavit and included him as a party in the IMA’s plea against Patanjali Ayurveda.
In related developments, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting announced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal for TV and radio advertisements, and on the Press Council of India’s portal for print and digital advertisements, following the Supreme Court’s directive for advertisers to provide a ‘Self-Declaration Certificate’ prior to publication or broadcast.
This portal went live on June 4, 2024.
Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022]
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
