The Supreme Court on Monday closed the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) petition against misleading claims in advertisements of traditional medicine, and vacated its earlier order that had kept a stricter approval requirement in place [Indian Medical Association vs. Union of India].
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan was hearing a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurveda over misleading ads published by Patanjali which disparaged modern medicine.
The Court's focus in this case was initially on Patanjali's misleading ads (which the Court later imposed a temporary ban on), the failure of regulatory authorities to act against Patanjali, and the corrective steps to be taken by Patanjali and its promoters (Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna).
The Court had also initiated contempt of court proceedings against Patanjali's promoters but eventually closed the same after the Ayurveda giant tendered several apologies.
Meanwhile, the Court's attention was also drawn to several larger issues, including misleading advertisements by other consumer goods suppliers as well as unethical practices in modern medicine.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) passed a notification on July 1, 2024 that deleted Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - a provision that had required advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani medicines to be pre-approved by State licensing authorities.
Rule 170 was originally introduced to curb false or exaggerated claims in traditional medicine advertisements. For example, a company could not promote a herbal pill as a guaranteed cure for diabetes without first showing the State licensing authority evidence of its claims. Once Rule 170 was removed, such prior vetting was no longer required.
In August 2024, shortly after the AYUSH Ministry’s notification, the issue was brought before a Supreme Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta that imposed a stay on the deletion of rule 170 , meaning the requirement for State approval remained in force during the case.
During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing as Amicus Curiae said that omitting rule 170 essentially brought ayurvedic medicines in line with allopathy.
"A lot has happened since the 27th August, 2024 order (imposing the stay). The States have been implementing the rule," he said.
Justice Viswanathan responded saying how can States implement a rule that has already been omitted by the Centre.
Justice Nagarathna pointed at closing the case since all the initial reliefs sought in the writ petition had already been achieved. She further said that the judiciary does not have the power to legislate or revive an omission once it has been passed by the Centre.
Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for one of the intervenors in the matter, batted for status quo to be maintained with respect to the August 2024 stay granted by the Court. He drew the Court's attention to the horrors of misleading medicals ads on the society.
"There are large number of people who are gullible...In Ayurveda you can come up and say this is the cure of this disease, people will be lured. And the disease will be in curable by the time they will approach the allopathic doctor," he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, said there was already a robust legal and self-regulatory framework prohibiting false or exaggerated medical claims, making Rule 170 unnecessary.
“There is already a statutory mechanism in place...let us not doubt the intelligence of the common man," he said.
The Court also pointed out that so long as manufacturing of AYUSH drugs were allowed, banning their advertisement would result in an unfair trade practice.
"Once you permit manufacture, then advertisement of that product will be a natural business practice," Justice Nagarathna said.
With these remarks, the Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition and vacate its earlier stay on the Centre's February 2024 notification.
"It is not in dispute that the relief sought for have been achieved in as much as by various orders passed by this Court. However subsequently the writ petition has been considered on various dates and several orders have been passed. During the pendency AYUSH had by notification dated 1.7.2024 had omitted rule 170 of the 1945 rules. However, thereafter subsequently this court by order dated 27.8.24 stayed the notification dated 1st July. Ld. Amicus said the rule is still in force and various compliances have been made in the said rule. By various orders the prayers of the writ petition have been achieved and do not survive for further consideration. Hence the writ petition stands disposed. Liberty is allowed to the parties to approach the High Court if they have any problems with the omission of rule 170. Consequently the interim order dated 27.8.24 stands vacated," the Court noted in its order while closing the matter.
[Read Live Coverage]