The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Central government over its failure to invoke the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules of 1945 against Patanjali Ayurved for broadcasting and publishing misleading advertisements [Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors].Pertinently, a Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted today that the AYUSH Ministry of the Central government had sent a letter to all State governments in 2023 asking them not to take any action under Rule 170 of Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945.In the said letter, the Central government had also indicated that it is mooting the withdrawal of the said rule, which deals with action against misleading ads."Minister of State had submitted in parliament that you have taken steps against such ads.. And now you say Rule 170 will not be given effect to?" the Court remarked."Can you put on hold the exercise of law when it is in power? ...Then is it not a colorable exercise of power and violation of law?" Justice Amanullah added."It looks like the authorities were very busy looking at the revenue," Justice Kohli observed."There is a TV news segment where the anchor is reading about what happened in court and the ad is running alongside it ... What a situation!" Justice Amanullah further remarked.The Court demanded that the government explain this 2023 letter and the proposed withdrawal of Rule 170."The Union of India has been called to explain the letter dated August 29 to the Drugs Controller Authority, States, omitting Rule 170," the Court ordered."How was this letter issued at all? This has to be answered by the Union. Be ready," Justice Amanullah told the Central government's counsel."This is in teeth of proceedings before two courts and you virtually tie the hands of the court by saying this regarding Rule 170," Justice Kohli added."Indeed, we will answer milord," Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj assured.The Court also decided to take a closer look at the implementation of laws such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.The Court clarified that this examination would not just be limited to how well these laws have been enforced against Patanjali Ayurved, but would concern its implementation against misleading ads for other Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) as well.The Court said that it was concerned with such misleading ads taking the public for a ride, and affecting the health of babies, children and the elderly, who have been consuming medicines after being influenced by the misleading ads."We are not here to gun for a particular party, it is in the larger interest of consumers/ public on how they are being misled," the Court explained.The Court also decided to add the Central Consumer Affairs Department, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as well as the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as parties to the caseThe Court opined that it was necessary to implead these authorities to examine what could be done to tackle misleading ads or violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, as well as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act."Said Ministries shall file their affidavits explaining the action taken to counter misuse of the aforesaid statutes for a period of three years," the Court ordered.Further, the Court has added all State governments and Union Territories as parties to the case as well.The Bench was hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against an alleged smear campaign carried out by Patanjali and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.The Court was informed today that Patanjali has now published public apologies in 67 newspapers over its conduct."Was it of the same size as your earlier ads?" Justice Kohli asked.Notably, the Court had earlier expressed that they were dissatisfied with the casual apology affidavits filed by Patanjali Ayurved as well as Ramdev and Balkrishna after they were pulled up for failing to stop carrying misleading advertisements.During the last hearing of the case, the Court had personally interacted with Ramdev and Balkrishna to gauge the genuineness of their apologies, while making it clear that they were not out of the woods yet.At the time, the duo assured the Court (through their counsel) that they would voluntarily take steps to prove the genuineness of their apology.Appearing for Ramdev today, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the Court that apologies have been published in newspapers. When queried about the size of these apologies, the senior counsel pointed out that it is expensive to run such ads."It costs a lot.. lakhs of rupees," he said.The Bench has asked for a copy of these apologies to be submitted to the Court.The Court further took note of a submission that additional apology ads shall be issued by Patanjali and its promoters, to further show their unqualified apology for their lapses.The Court also took note of an intervention application seeking that costs be imposed on the IMA."There is an intervention which wants us to impose ₹1,000 crores on IMA as costs for filing this complaint. Looks like a proxy plea on your behalf, Mr. Rohatgi," Justice Kohli remarked."I have nothing to do with this," Rohatgi replied."We are very curious about the timing of the application.. Looks like an interloper and not an intervention," the Court observed while orally indicating that it was inclined to impose costs on the applicant.All the same, the Court indicated that it would also look into certain allegations against the IMA regarding unnecessary medical prescriptions."The petitioner (IMA) needs to put its own house in order regarding alleged unethical acts of the petitioner organisation where medicines are prescribed which are expensive and unnecessary. Whenever there is a misuse of the position by the petitioner association to prescribe expensive medicines and the line of treatment needs closer examination," the Court noted in its order today.
TAGS: Supreme Court Patanjali Ayurved misleading advertisements Drugs and Cosmetics Rules apology Indian Medical Association intervention application
