Today(on May 7th), Supreme Court addresses Patanjali’s misleading online ads, emphasizes accountability and consumer protection. Demands action and plan from Patanjali while stressing suspension of sales for products with revoked licenses.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on May 7th), the Supreme Court expressed its serious concern about the continued presence of misleading advertisements for Patanjali products on various online platforms, despite being banned.
A Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah addressed Patanjali’s counsel, inquiring about their plans to take down such advertisements.
Justice Kohli stated-
“We need to highlight to you that your prohibited products’ misleading advertisements are still accessible across various online platforms. What measures are you taking to remove them?”
Representing Patanjali, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh responded that the company would devise a plan to address this issue by the next hearing.
“Numerous advertisements flooded social media platforms, beyond (Patanjali’s) ability to manage. We are aware and committed to presenting a comprehensive plan by the next deadline.”
– he assured.
The Court emphasized that the company should not sell products for which licenses were suspended.
Justice Amanullah asserted-
“If the license is suspended, the product must cease to be sold. A notice must be issued; otherwise, the moment it is suspended, sales should halt immediately. The same should be put on hold. Remove it from shelves.”
The Court also questioned a state licensing authority for not ensuring that such products are removed from the market.
ALSO READ: [Patanjali Row] Uttarakhand Licensing Body Apologizes to SC | Cancels Licences of 14 Products
The counsel for the licensing authority began to submit, “By 14th May, we will show…” before the Court interjected-
“Don’t wait for us to prompt every action! Have you not requested them to withdraw? You must convey that they are not permitted to engage in transactions involving products whose sales license has been suspended. We are growing impatient with your officers…”
The Court denied an oral request to further exempt the personal appearances of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna of Patanjali.
Justice Kohli stated-
“We granted exemption for their appearance only for today. Please refrain from requesting any further exemptions, we apologize.”
The Court also called for a response from the Indian Medical Association (IMA) President regarding comments allegedly made against the Court in an April 29 media interview. The IMA President was accused of criticizing the Court for “pointing fingers” at the association during an earlier hearing of the case.
Referring to these statements, the Court remarked-
“You (IMA) accuse the other party (Patanjali Ayurved) of misleading and disparaging your medicine, but what actions were you taking? … Let us be clear, this court does not seek praise. We have also faced criticism. We have strong shoulders, but…”
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia urged the Court to let him respond by May 14, while assuring that the IMA President’s quotes were taken out of context and that he was sorry for making such statements. The Court issued notice to the IMA President and asked him to respond by May 14, with Justice Amanullah orally remarking-
“It’s implicit that if a notice is served, he is required to attend,” Justice Kohli remarked, “It’s not for us to decide. He should be aware.”
As the hearing concluded, the Court added-
“Many times, litigants don’t respond because they fail to comprehend the seriousness, and their counsel doesn’t effectively communicate it. It’s unfortunate that the opposing side (IMA) has now taken on this stance.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the IMA against an alleged smear campaign carried out by Patanjali and its founders against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine. The scope of the case was eventually expanded to cover broader issues. The Court indicated its intention to examine objectionable ads by other suppliers of consumer goods as well as unethical practices in modern medicine.
In its recent order, the Court issued several directions concerning misleading advertisements, including:
- Broadcasters or print media should file a self-declaration form before carrying any advertisements, assuring that the advertisement complies with Cable Network Rules, Advertising Code, etc.
- Ministries should set up a specific procedure for consumers to lodge complaints and ensure that these complaints are addressed instead of merely being endorsed or marked.
- Individuals endorsing a product should have adequate information or experience with the specific food product being endorsed, ensuring that it is not deceptive.
- Celebrities and social media influencers will be equally liable for misleading ads if they endorse any deceptive product or service.
- The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution was ordered to file a fresh affidavit on actions taken by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) against false or misleading ads, particularly in the food and health sectors.
The Court also recorded that the Central government decided to withdraw an August 2023 letter that suspended the invocation of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 against misleading AYUSH ads.
