Highlighting the critical need for enforcing the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, the Court directed all states to strictly implement Rule 170. It cautioned against inaction, stating the urgency of curbing misleading medical claims.
The Supreme Court today addressed the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) plea concerning misleading advertisements and false claims targeting allopathic medicine, emphasizing the necessity of strict enforcement of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan assessed the compliance status of various states, including Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Pondicherry, and Punjab, in implementing the prescribed regulations to prevent deceptive medical promotions.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Criticizes IMA for Prescribing Expensive, Unnecessary
Scrutiny of State Compliance Reports
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, acting as amicus curiae, pointed out discrepancies in the reports submitted by different states, highlighting inadequate enforcement and procedural lapses. The Court took a particularly strong stance against Jharkhand, rejecting its claim that no manufacturers in the state had applied for permission under Rule 170.
It questioned whether the state had investigated advertisements that might be violating Rule 170(2) and directed the government to file an affidavit clarifying whether any such misleading ads were being published. The Bench stressed that the
“Primary responsibility of ensuring compliance lay with the state authorities, cautioning against any negligence in enforcement”
In the case of Karnataka, the Court criticized the state’s failure to take action against misleading advertisements in 25 instances. It dismissed Karnataka’s justification—
“That the lack of particulars prevented prosecution—as an “excuse,” asserting that the state’s law enforcement agencies had the means to investigate and trace the sources of such advertisements”
The Court directed the Karnataka government to utilize its police machinery effectively and submit a compliance report detailing the actions taken against violators.
Recognition of Kerala’s Proactive Approach
While examining Kerala’s compliance, the Court acknowledged that the state had provided the most comprehensive affidavit, including relevant recommendations for improving enforcement. This contrasted with the responses of other states, where the Court found lapses in addressing misleading claims about medical treatments.
Punjab’s compliance was also under review, though the Court noted gaps in its enforcement strategy. Meanwhile, Andhra Pradesh’s counsel sought the deletion of a directive issued to the Chief Secretary regarding compliance with Rule 170. The Court refused this request, citing the state’s failure to submit an affidavit demonstrating adherence to the regulations. It warned Andhra Pradesh that continued non-compliance would not be tolerated and that the state must take corrective measures.
Court’s Directive: States Must Act Against Misleading Medical Claims
Reiterating its firm stance, the Supreme Court emphasized that
“State governments must proactively enforce Rule 170 and take legal action against violators”
The Bench warned that
“any inaction in curbing misleading medical advertisements would not be excused and directed all states under scrutiny to file detailed compliance reports“
The ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting public health by ensuring transparency and accountability in medical advertising.
ALSO READ: No Intention of Diminishing the Dignity of the SC: IMA Chief Tenders
Court’s Previous Directives and State Non-Compliance
On February 10, the Bench had already criticized several states for their failure to act against misleading medical advertisements despite previous court orders. The states were expected to regulate deceptive promotions in the healthcare sector, ensuring strict compliance with Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which mandates that no drug advertisement should mislead consumers or make unverified claims. However, the Court found that many states had either not taken any action or had cited difficulties in identifying offenders.
To address this persistent non-compliance, the Supreme Court summoned the Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir to appear via video conferencing on March 7. The top officials are expected to explain their respective governments’ failure to implement the Court’s directives effectively.
This move follows the Court’s January 15 order, where it issued strong instructions for states and Union Territories to take concrete action against misleading claims and advertisements. In that hearing, the Bench had also warned of potential contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against officials who failed to comply with its orders.
Contempt Proceedings Against IMA President Closed
During the same proceedings, the Court reviewed the contempt case against Dr. R.V. Asokan, the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA). Dr. Asokan had previously given a press interview in which he made remarks against the Supreme Court while the IMA’s plea against Patanjali Ayurved was still pending before the Court. However, after reviewing the matter, the Bench decided to close the contempt proceedings against him.
Lack of Prosecution Under Relevant Laws
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, serving as amicus curiae, highlighted before the Court that despite multiple directives, very few prosecutions were taking place under Sections 3 and 4 of the relevant law. As per the affidavits submitted by different states, enforcement mechanisms remained weak, and authorities had failed to take decisive action against those responsible for misleading advertisements.
Justice Oka strongly questioned the lack of action, criticizing the explanations provided by certain state governments. The Delhi Government had claimed it faced “difficulties in identifying offenders”, while Karnataka’s response suggested that many culprits remained “unidentified”—excuses that the Bench found unacceptable.
The Court firmly pointed out that authorities should act based on complaints received from the public rather than waiting for offenders to be explicitly identified. “Why not take action based on complaints received?” the Bench asked, stressing that it was the responsibility of the state governments to investigate and prosecute violations proactively.
The Court’s Message: Strict Compliance is Mandatory
The Supreme Court’s latest orders send a clear message to states: failure to regulate misleading medical advertisements will not be tolerated. By summoning high-ranking officials and warning of contempt proceedings, the Court has reinforced the importance of protecting public health from deceptive medical claims.
The upcoming hearing on March 7 will be crucial, as the Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir will have to provide justifications for their states’ non-compliance. If their responses remain unsatisfactory, the Court may impose stricter measures to ensure enforcement, including possible contempt action against government officials.
As the case progresses, the Supreme Court’s firm intervention highlights the pressing need for a nationwide crackdown on misleading medical advertisements, ensuring that consumers are not deceived by unverified health claims.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Criticizes IMA for Prescribing Expensive, Unnecessary
Developments in Supreme Court’s Scrutiny of IMA President and Misleading Advertisements
May 7, 2024
The Supreme Court issued a notice to Dr. R. V. Asokan, the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), making him a party to the IMA’s petition against Patanjali Ayurved. The Court further directed him to file an affidavit regarding the matter. Additionally, the Bench criticized the IMA, pointing out that while the association was accusing Patanjali of misleading advertisements, some of its own members were actively endorsing medicines without proper justification. The Court remarked, “While the Petitioner is pointing fingers at Patanjali, those other four fingers are pointing at you.”
May 14, 2024
The Supreme Court refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by Dr. Asokan for his remarks against the Court in a press interview. The Bench questioned his intent and conduct, particularly noting his failure to issue a public apology. During the proceedings, the Court reserved its decision on the contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna in connection with the Patanjali misleading advertisements case. The Bench also emphasized the need for greater harmony between Allopathy and Ayurveda, urging a balanced and respectful discourse between the two medical disciplines.
June 4, 2024
Following the Supreme Court’s directive in Writ Petition Civil No. 645/2022 (Indian Medical Association & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.), the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting introduced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal for TV and Radio advertisements, and updated the Press Council of India’s portal for Print and Digital/Internet advertisements. This new system was implemented to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the advertising industry.
July 9, 2024
The Supreme Court reiterated that its previous self-declaration requirement for the advertising industry should not be adversely affected by its ongoing directives in the case. Additionally, the Court appointed Advocate Shadan Farasat as amicus curiae, specifically tasking him with compiling and analyzing data submitted by various states. Furthermore, the Bench requested the Central Government to hold discussions with stakeholders and senior officials of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to address issues and challenges faced by advertisers regarding misleading advertisements in the healthcare sector.
August 6, 2024
During proceedings related to the show-cause contempt notice issued to Dr. Asokan, Senior Advocate Mr. Patwalia, representing the IMA President, sought additional time for his client to take steps to purge himself of contempt. Accepting this request, the Supreme Court deferred its decision and scheduled the next hearing for August 27.
August 13, 2024
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court discharged contempt notices issued against Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case. While the Court accepted their unconditional apologies, it also issued a strict warning against future violations. The Bench clarified the legal standing of court undertakings, emphasizing that whether an undertaking is given in writing or orally and recorded in a court order, it holds the same force as a judicial order. The Court ruled, “An undertaking given to the Court has the same force as an order of the Court, and breach thereof would amount to contempt in the same manner as a breach of an injunction.”
August 2024
A Bench led by Justice Hima Kohli expressed concern over the minuscule font size used in the apology published by Dr. Asokan. The apology was issued in response to a contempt notice regarding his remarks against the Supreme Court while the IMA’s petition against Patanjali Ayurved was still pending.
During the same proceedings, the Court also addressed the broader issue of misleading health claims by FMCG companies. Amicus curiae Shadan Farasat informed the Bench that several States and Union Territories (UTs) had failed to submit compliance affidavits as per the Court’s earlier orders. Specifically, the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, and Sikkim had not filed the necessary documents.
With this structured timeline, the Supreme Court’s continued scrutiny of misleading advertisements, enforcement of legal compliance, and insistence on accountability from stakeholders remain evident throughout the developments.
Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022]
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
