The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the Central government's failure to enforce the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules against Patanjali Ayurved for broadcasting misleading advertisements. In a recent hearing, the Court questioned the government's decision to instruct states not to take action under Rule 170 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945, effectively shielding Patanjali from legal repercussions.
The Court, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, expressed dismay at the government's stance, highlighting the apparent contradiction between its commitment to combating misleading ads and its reluctance to invoke relevant regulations. The government's move to potentially withdraw Rule 170 drew sharp criticism from the Bench, which deemed it a questionable exercise of power and a violation of legal norms.
Furthermore, the Court demanded clarification on the government's 2023 letter to the Drugs Controller Authority and states, instructing them to refrain from implementing Rule 170. The decision to involve additional ministries, such as the Consumer Affairs Department and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, underscores the gravity of the situation and the need for comprehensive action against misleading advertisements.
The Court's scrutiny extends beyond Patanjali's case to encompass broader issues of consumer protection and public health. By adding all state governments and Union Territories as parties to the case, the Court aims to address systemic shortcomings in regulating advertisements for Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG). The Bench emphasized the importance of safeguarding consumers from deceptive marketing practices that could compromise their health and well-being.
The legal battle between Patanjali and the Indian Medical Association (IMA) has drawn attention to the ethical and regulatory challenges posed by misleading advertisements. Despite Patanjali's publication of apologies in newspapers, the Court remains vigilant, seeking assurance of their sincerity and adequacy. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali, informed the Court about the substantial costs involved in running apology ads, indicating the company's commitment to rectifying its mistakes.
However, the Court also scrutinized the IMA's conduct, noting allegations of unethical practices and unnecessary medical prescriptions within the organization. While emphasizing the need for accountability, the Court cautioned against opportunistic interventions seeking exorbitant costs, highlighting the complex dynamics at play in the legal battle.
In light of the Supreme Court's rigorous oversight and commitment to upholding legal principles, the case against Patanjali serves as a crucial test of India's regulatory framework for advertising and consumer protection. As the legal proceedings unfold, stakeholders await further developments that could reshape the landscape of advertising regulation in the country.