[BREAKING] Patanjali Vs IMA | "Advertisement Industry Should Not Suffer": SC To Hear Intervention Applications On July 30

The Supreme Court Today (July 9th) said that its earlier order containing directions for self-declaration to be submitted by the advertisement industry should not adversely suffer on account of its directions. The Court requested the Centre to convene a meeting with stakeholders and senior officials of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to resolve issues and difficulties faced by advertisers.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

[BREAKING] Patanjali vs IMA | "Advertisement Industry Should Not Suffer": SC To Hear Intervention Applications On July 30

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today emphasized that its prior directive concerning self-declaration requirements for the advertisement industry should not adversely impact the sector. The Court requested the Centre to convene a meeting with stakeholders and senior officials from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to address issues and challenges faced by advertisers.

This development arose during the hearing of a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 by the Indian Medical Association (IMA). In a prior Order dated February 27, 2024, the Court had restrained Patanjali from advertising or branding certain products aimed at addressing ailments/diseases/conditions listed under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 and the Rules.

Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta underscored,

“We are also of the opinion that the industry (advertisement industry) should not suffer in any manner. The focus of this Court has already been highlighted in previous orders and needs no repetition. The Ministry is directed to continue the churning of ideas and have further meetings in this direction and file an affidavit making its recommendations.”

Initially, the Court inquired whether the IMA had confirmed that Patanjali had ceased airing advertisements that were in violation of the law. When Senior Advocate PS Patwalia responded negatively, the Court expressed that the IMA should have completed this verification by today.

The Court noted Patanjali’s affidavit stating that it had stopped selling products suspended by the Drug Licensing Authority of Uttarakhand and had issued instructions to cease all advertisements for the said medicines.

The Court directed Patanjali to submit an affidavit detailing the actions taken by social media intermediaries to remove the advertisements withdrawn by Patanjali.

The Court appointed Advocate Shadan Farasat as an Amicus Curiae to compile all the data presented by various states and submit it before the Court. The IMA informed the Court that its President, Dr. R.V. Asokan, had filed an additional affidavit including his apology, which had been published on the official IMA website, PTI, and other media outlets. The Court acknowledged Dr. Asokan’s personal presence and exempted him from appearing in person for the time being.

The Court then addressed intervention applications from various industry associations, including the Advertising Agencies Association (represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan), the Internet and Mobile Association of India (represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal), the Association of Radio Operators (represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave), and the Broadband India Forum (represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar), among others.

The Court appointed three Nodal Counsel to consolidate data related to the intervention and interim relief applications linked to its prior order on advertisements.

The Court noted that the Union had already conducted meetings with some of the intervention applicants to address their concerns. It reiterated that the advertisement industry should not suffer due to the Court’s orders.

The contempt case against Patanjali was adjourned to August 6, while the main case, including the intervention applications, was scheduled for July 30.

Significantly, on May 14, the Court had declined to accept the unconditional apology from Dr. R.V. Asokan for his press remarks against the Supreme Court during the pendency of IMA’s plea against Patanjali Ayurved concerning misleading advertisements.

Previously, the Court had criticized Dr. Asokan, emphasizing the importance of his conduct and questioning the absence of a public apology. The Bench had also reserved its order on the Contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna in the case, calling for camaraderie between Allopathy and Ayurveda.

On May 7, the Bench issued notice to the current President of the IMA, added him as a party to the plea against Patanjali Ayurved, and directed him to file an affidavit. The Court had also criticized the IMA, remarking,

“While the Petitioner is pointing fingers at Patanjali, those other four fingers are pointing at you, because members of your association have been busy endorsing medicines to their patients, left, right, and centre.”

In related news, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a press release stating that, in compliance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 645/2022-Indian Medical Association & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., requiring all advertisers and advertising agencies to furnish a ‘Self-Declaration Certificate‘ before publishing or broadcasting any advertisement, the Ministry had introduced 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/Internet Advertisements.

This portal became operational on June 4, 2024.

Case Title:
Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022.