The Supreme Court closed the IMA’s case against Patanjali over misleading ads and lifted its stay on the Centre’s deletion of Rule 170. AYUSH medicine ads can now run without prior State licensing approval.
New Delhi: On August 11, the Supreme Court closed the case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against misleading advertisements of traditional medicines and removed its earlier order that had kept a stricter approval requirement in place. The case was titled Indian Medical Association vs. Union of India.
The matter began when the IMA approached the Court against Patanjali Ayurveda for running advertisements that made misleading claims and attacked modern medicine.
The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan had earlier focused on these misleading ads, the failure of authorities to act against Patanjali, and the steps that Patanjali and its promoters — Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna — needed to take to correct the situation.
The Court had even started contempt proceedings against Patanjali’s promoters, but later closed them after the company issued several apologies.
As the hearings went on, the Court also looked at larger issues such as misleading ads by other companies and unethical practices in modern medicine.
During the case, the Ministry of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy) issued a notification on July 1, 2024, deleting Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Rule 170 required companies to get prior approval from State licensing authorities before advertising Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani medicines.
This rule had been introduced to prevent false or exaggerated claims — for example, a company could not promote a herbal pill as a “guaranteed cure” for diabetes without evidence. With Rule 170 deleted, such pre-approval was no longer necessary.
In August 2024, shortly after the AYUSH Ministry removed the rule, the matter came before a different Supreme Court Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, which stayed the deletion of Rule 170. This meant that the approval requirement remained in force temporarily.
During Monday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing as Amicus Curiae, said,
“A lot has happened since the 27th August, 2024 order (imposing the stay). The States have been implementing the rule.”
Justice Viswanathan responded by asking how States could enforce a rule that had already been deleted by the Centre.
Also Read: Kerala Court Issues Arrest Warrant Against Baba Ramdev For Misleading Patanjali Ads
Justice Nagarathna suggested that the case could now be closed since the main reliefs sought by the IMA had already been achieved. She explained that the judiciary did not have the power to legislate or bring back a deleted provision once the Centre had removed it.
Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, representing one of the intervenors, argued that the Court should maintain the August 2024 stay.
He highlighted the danger of misleading medical ads, saying,
“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. And the disease will be in curable by the time they will approach the allopathic doctor.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, argued that there was already a strong legal and self-regulatory system to prevent false or exaggerated medical claims, making Rule 170 unnecessary.
He said,
“There is already a statutory mechanism in place…let us not doubt the intelligence of the common man.”
The Court also observed that banning advertisements while allowing the manufacture of AYUSH drugs could lead to unfair trade practices. Justice Nagarathna remarked,
“Once you permit manufacture, then advertisement of that product will be a natural business practice.”
Finally, the Court closed the IMA’s writ petition and vacated its earlier stay on the Centre’s July 2024 notification.
Also Read: Dabur Moves To Delhi HC Against Patanjali for Disparaging Chyawanprash Ads
The order stated,
“It is not in dispute that the relief sought for have been achieved in as much as by various orders passed by this Court. However subsequently the writ petition has been considered on various dates and several orders have been passed. During the pendency AYUSH had by notification dated 1.7.2024 had omitted rule 170 of the 1945 rules. However, thereafter subsequently this court by order dated 27.8.24 stayed the notification dated 1st July. Ld. Amicus said the rule is still in force and various compliances have been made in the said rule. By various orders the prayers of the writ petition have been achieved and do not survive for further consideration. Hence the writ petition stands disposed. Liberty is allowed to the parties to approach the High Court if they have any problems with the omission of rule 170. Consequently the interim order dated 27.8.24 stands vacated.”
This effectively ends the Supreme Court’s direct involvement in the matter, though parties can still approach the High Court if they wish to challenge the deletion of Rule 170.
Case Title:
Indian Medical Association vs. Union of India
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Patanjali
