The Supreme Court Today (May 7th) questioned the Central government’s directive to AYUSH authorities, asking why they were instructed not to act against misleading advertisements under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The inquiry came during a hearing of a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against an alleged smear campaign by Patanjali Ayurved and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, targeting the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the Central government for instructing AYUSH authorities in states and union territories to refrain from taking action against misleading advertisements under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against an alleged smear campaign conducted by Patanjali Ayurved and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.
During the proceedings, the Court’s attention was directed to a letter issued by the Central government in 2023, which effectively halted the enforcement of Rule 170. The rule, introduced in 2018, prohibits the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs without approval from the licensing authority in the respective state or union territory. Its aim is to address misleading advertisements.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, was informed that the rule was challenged in several High Courts. The Delhi High Court subsequently directed the Central government to re-examine the rule after obtaining expert advice.
Despite the ongoing reconsideration, the Central government had advised states to refrain from enforcing Rule 170 against misleading advertisements. The Bench, however, found this explanation unconvincing.
Justice Amanullah questioned the government‘s stance, stating,
“Union of India then got the benefit of recommendations (on Rule 170). Without taking a decision (on reconsidering Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules), why are you saying don’t take action under Rule 170? The High Court had directed you to take a decision. As of now, the law is still there. Why, without taking a decision, did you say don’t take steps under Rule 170?”
Justice Kohli reinforced this position, asserting,
“Until then (a decision is taken), it is good law. It applies!”
Justice Amanullah questioned the Central government’s stance, stating,
“Let us be clear, you (Central government) have all the power, you can reconsider the rule, you have done that. But it is glaring! The rule (Rule 170) was not withdrawn. Can you justify that a law existing today was not implemented? Is it permissible under the Constitution of India?”
Justice Kohli added,
“By an administrative act, can you keep that regulation on hold?”
Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj assured the Court that a final decision on Rule 170 would be made at the earliest.
The Court proceeded to discuss the complaint redressal mechanism for misleading ads. It noted that once a complaint is received by the Centre, it is forwarded to state authorities for action. In this context, the Court questioned whether the current law effectively addresses consumer complaints against misleading advertisements.
“Complaints are only forwarded to the concerned States. We don’t know what happened to those complaints? Even if there is a lot of regulatory mechanisms, and there is no cohesion, consumers would never know what happened to the complaint. You are forwarding, that is the end of your mandate…Won’t it be necessary to show if the complaint was acted on? Otherwise, consumers would only get fed up,”
-Justice Kohli observed.
Justice Amanullah added that the impression the Court was getting was that the mechanism in place was not effective.
“The Court’s focus is the public. Whoever tries to come in the way of public interest is going to face our onslaught,”
-he stated.
The Court also questioned whether the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has sufficient authority to act against misleading or objectionable advertisements.
“If ASCI is the only recommendatory body, what is the value of their recommendations if you don’t give them power?”
-the Court queried.
The Court further questioned what the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has done to ensure advertisements comply with the law. After being briefed on the CCPA’s past actions, the Court noted,
“For an entire country, if they are supposed to take suo motu action, is it not a paltry number?…Awareness notifications are all very well for those in the legal community, but for an ordinary consumer?”
The Court took strong exception to comments made by IMA president Dr. RV Asokan during an interview, where he allegedly criticized the Court for “pointing fingers” at the association during an earlier hearing. Referring to these comments, the Court remarked,
“You (IMA) say the other side (Patanjali Ayurved) is misleading, running your medicine down – but what were you doing?! … Let us make it clear, this court is not expecting any pats on the back. This court has also received its share of brickbats. We also have broad shoulders but..!”
Representing the IMA, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia urged the Court to grant him time until the next hearing date on May 14 to make further submissions. Meanwhile, Senior Advocates Vipin Sanghi and Balbir Singh appeared for Patanjali and Baba Ramdev, informing the Court that they had filed original newspaper pages containing unconditional apologies by Patanjali Ayurved for broadcasting misleading advertisements in violation of the Court’s earlier orders.
Additionally, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing Patanjali, informed the Court that an application had been filed concerning the IMA President’s “wanton” comments against the Supreme Court.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Patanjali
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
