In a critical advancement, the Incomparable Court of India has remained the Central government's choice to exclude Run the show 170 of the Drugs and Makeup Rules, 1945, which was particularly pointed at checking deluding notices related to Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs. This choice comes in reaction to a request recorded by the Indian Therapeutic Affiliation (IMA) against what it named as a spread campaign by Patanjali Ayurved against cutting edge pharmaceutical.
Background
Run the show 170 was presented into the 1945 Rules in 2018 with the particular expectation to direct notices for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs. The run the show required that such notices get endorsement from a permitting specialist within the State or Union Domain where the sedate was manufactured some time recently they can be distributed. The objective was clear to handle and avoid deceiving notices that seem possibly hurt open wellbeing.
However, in 2023, a letter issued by the Central government effectively paused the invocation of Rule 170. The States and Union Territories were directed not to enforce this rule against misleading advertisements after an advisory board recommended its removal. This directive caused considerable concern, especially in light of the ongoing case involving Patanjali Ayurved, where the company was accused of launching a smear campaign against modern medicine through misleading ads.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
The circumstances changed when the Supreme Court brought attention to the letter from 2023. In April 2024, the Court reprimanded the officials for failing to enforce Rule 170 against Patanjali Ayurved's deceptive advertising. The Court was explicit in its demand for the rule to be used in order to safeguard consumers from deception.
In a unexpected decision, the Central government chose to completely remove Rule 170 instead of strengthening it, as stated in a notification released on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court was not pleased with this decision.
A Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta expressed their displeasure over this development. The Court, in its order, remarked:
"In our opinion this notification of omission flies on the face of this court's order on May 7 ... Instead of withdrawing the letter of 29/8/2023, the notification dated 1/7/2024 has been released to omit Rule 170 of 1945 rules. Mr. Natarajan states that time will be given to clarify the omission. He is given time to clarify. Till then the notification of July 1, 2024 omitting Rule 170 stands stayed or in other words remains in the statute books."
Court’s Displeasure and Stay Order
The Bench did not mince words when questioning the Centre’s decision to omit Rule 170, especially in light of the Court’s earlier order. Justice Kohli directly confronted Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, stating:
"You have withdrawn the letter but the rule stands omitted ... How can you take this decision of omitting this rule in the teeth of the court's order?"
Justice Sandeep Mehta further emphasized the gravity of the situation, noting the potential dangers of allowing misleading advertisements without regulatory oversight:
"You cannot use a letter to put a rule on hold. The intention was to ensure that Rule 170 stays, but you have omitted ... Any manufacturer can go around and make any ad."
In response, ASG Nataraj assured the Court that an affidavit would be filed to explain the government’s decision. However, the Bench made it clear that the rule must remain in force until the Court is satisfied with the government’s explanation:
"We will quash your notification right now. No affidavit. You are violating our order. We are going to quash your notification. Mr Nataraj don't look at the amicus ... We are sorry. This cannot happen here," remarked Justice Kohli before the Court ordered the stay on the omission of Rule 170.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the omission of Rule 170 underscores the importance of regulating advertisements, especially in the health and wellness sectors. The case also highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that regulatory mechanisms are not undermined, particularly when public health is at stake. As the matter progresses, the government will be required to justify its decision, but for now, Rule 170 remains in place, offering a safeguard against misleading AYUSH ads.
TAGS: Supreme Court Rule 170 Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 misleading advertisements Ayurvedic Siddha Unani drugs Central government Indian Medical Association Patanjali Ayurved public health.
