Today(27th August), The Supreme Court of India has stayed the Central government’s notification omitting Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which prevents misleading advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs. Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta criticized the Ministry of Ayush for removing the rule despite a prior court order to maintain it.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(27th August), The Supreme Court of India issued a stay on the Central government’s notification that omitted Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. This rule, initially introduced in 2018, was designed to prevent misleading advertisements related to Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs, and its omission has sparked significant legal debate.
A Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, who were overseeing the proceedings, expressed their dissatisfaction with the Ministry of Ayush’s recent actions. The ministry had issued a notification on July 1, 2024, omitting Rule 170 despite a previous order from the apex court on May 7, 2024, that clearly directed the continuation of the rule to prevent deceptive advertising practices.
“In our view, this notification of omission directly contradicts the court’s order from May 7.”
-the Bench stated,
adding-
“Rather than retracting the letter from August 29, 2023, the notification dated July 1, 2024, was issued to omit Rule 170 of the 1945 rules.”
The controversy surrounding Rule 170 began when the Ministry of Ayush, in August 2023, issued a letter to States and Union Territories, advising them not to take any action under Rule 170. This advisory followed a recommendation from an advisory board to remove the rule altogether. The ministry’s directive was intended to avoid “confusion among the various State/UT SLAs (state licensing authorities)” and to “prevent avoidable litigations,” as noted in an affidavit submitted by the Centre.
“It is respectfully submitted that, given the additional time required for the final gazette notification, and to prevent confusion among State/UT licensing authorities and avoid unnecessary litigations, the Ministry of Ayush, through a letter dated August 29, 2023, instructed all State/UT licensing authorities not to take any action under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, while the final notification is pending.”
– the affidavit stated.
However, the Supreme Court had taken issue with this approach as early as May 2024, when it questioned the rationale behind the August 29, 2023 letter from the Ministry of Ayush. The Bench had been unequivocal in its stance, directing the ministry to “forthwith” withdraw the letter and ensure that Rule 170 remained active.
“You have withdrawn the letter, but the rule remains omitted.”
– Justice Kohli pointed out during the latest hearing.
“How can you make the decision to omit this rule despite the court’s order?”
-she asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, who was representing the Centre.
Justice Mehta added to the concerns, emphasizing the potential consequences of omitting Rule 170.
“You cannot use a letter to suspend a rule. The intention was to ensure that Rule 170 remains in effect, but you have instead omitted it. Now, manufacturers can circumvent the rule and make any advertisements they wish.”
-he said.
The Court’s concern was further amplified by the fact that Rule 170 was specifically introduced to regulate and approve advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs by the state or union territory licensing authority. This measure was seen as crucial in combating the spread of misleading advertisements that could potentially harm public health.
ASG Nataraj, responding to the Court’s concerns, assured that an affidavit would be filed to clarify the government’s position on the matter. However, the Bench was not satisfied with this assurance alone.
Justice Kohli was particularly firm, stating-
“We are immediately quashing your notification. No affidavit is needed. You are violating our order. This notification will be struck down. Mr. Nataraj, do not look to the amicus for guidance… We apologize, but this cannot proceed here.”
As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the notification omitting Rule 170 be stayed until further clarification is provided by the Centre.
“Until further orders, the effect of the notification dated July 1, 2024, which omits Rule 170, shall remain stayed.”
-the Bench ruled.
The issue initially came to the Court’s attention in April 2024 during the hearing of a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA). The IMA had accused Patanjali Ayurved and its founder, yoga guru Ramdev, of running a smear campaign against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine. The controversy surrounding Patanjali’s advertisements, which the IMA claimed were misleading, prompted the Supreme Court to scrutinize the implementation of Rule 170.
The matter is now set to be heard again in October 2024, by which time the Centre is expected to provide a detailed explanation regarding the decision to omit Rule 170. Until then, the rule remains in force, ensuring that advertising practices related to Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs continue to be regulated as intended.
