[BREAKING] Patanjali Case | "Publicise Complaints Against Misleading Ads Of Medicines": Supreme Court Urges Centre

The Supreme Court Today (July 30th) suggested that the AYUSH Ministry should create a centralised dashboard to publicise and track the progress of complaints filed against misleading advertisements on medicinal or allied healthcare products. The Court was hearing a case filed against Patanjali Ayurved and its promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna for publishing misleading ads targeting allopathic medicine.

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

[BREAKING] Patanjali Case | "Publicise complaints against misleading ads of medicines": Supreme Court Urges Centre

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court proposed that the AYUSH Ministry should develop a centralized dashboard to publicize and monitor the progress of complaints against misleading advertisements related to medicinal or allied healthcare products.

A Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta made this suggestion, highlighting the challenges in tracking such complaints, especially when they are transferred between State licensing authorities.

This issue also complicates prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as there is often no readily available data on the actions taken in response to these complaints.

“We are of the opinion that the Ministry of AYUSH shall set up a dashboard citing complaints received from stakeholders and also the State licensing authorities so that data is in the public domain. This will also address the issue that prosecution under Drugs and Cosmetics Act is hit by unavailability of complaints etc,”

-the Court stated.

The Court was addressing a case brought by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved and its promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for disseminating misleading advertisements about allopathic medicine.

The scope of the case was later broadened to include other issues, such as misleading advertisements by various entities, the liability of celebrity endorsers of misleading ads, and unethical practices in modern medicine.

Advocate Shadan Farasat was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court and gather data from various States and regulatory authorities on these matters.

The Court acknowledged several issues highlighted by the amicus, including the need for a centralized dashboard to monitor inter-State consumer complaints.

The Court noted that in States like Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Delhi, and West Bengal, many complaints about misleading claims or advertisements were forwarded to other States where the manufacturing units were located. However, there was no data provided by the receiving States on actions taken regarding these complaints, leaving consumers without information and support.

The Court suggested that the AYUSH Ministry establish a dashboard to provide details of complaints received from different States and the actions taken,

“so that data comes into public domain and can be made available to all consumers.”

This proposed dashboard would also facilitate prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which often face obstacles due to a lack of action-taken reports on consumer complaints.

Additionally, the Court pointed out that only a few States practice giving prior approval of advertisements before issuing licenses to ensure proper labeling and avoid misbranding of products. The Court has requested responses from States that do not follow this practice.

The amicus also noted the need to centralize consumer complaints about healthcare products. The Court was informed that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI) in 2018 ended in 2020, leading to a significant drop in complaints from 2,573 to around 132. The Court attributed this decline to the inadequate publicization of the Consumer Affairs Ministry’s existing complaint mechanism.

The Court emphasized the need to investigate the reasons behind this decline and has directed the Consumer Affairs Ministry to submit an affidavit on this matter within two weeks.

“The dwindling number of complaints speaks volumes of the poor manner in which the Consumer Affairs Ministry has publicised its grievance redressal portal,”

-the Court added, ordering the Ministry to examine this aspect and provide a specific response within two weeks.

The IMA had previously accused Patanjali of conducting a smear campaign against modern medicine, resulting in the Court issuing several strictures against Patanjali. However, the IMA itself faced criticism from the Court after its President made remarks critical of the Court’s call for doctors to address unethical practices within their profession.

In comments to the press, IMA President Dr. RV Asokan described it as “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court criticized the IMA, claiming that doctors were demoralized by the criticism.

The Bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, took strong exception to this statement.

During the last hearing, the IMA informed the Court that it had published full-page apologies for these comments.

CASE TITLE:
Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors