Patanjali Row: After SC Rebuke, Centre To Withdraw Letter Asking States To Not Act Against Ads For Ayurvedic Products
Patanjali Misleading Ads Case: Supreme Court also said that Celebrities, Social Media Influencers are equally liable for misleading advertisements if they endorse them.
Patanjali Misleading Ads Case: After the top court pulled up the Centre for issuing letter to all the States/UT Licensing Authorities to not take any action against the advertisements pertaining to Ayurvedic and Ayush products under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, the Ministry Of Ayush agreed to withdraw the letter. The Centre agreed to withdraw the letter after the top court expressed discontent over its affidavit in which it defended the letter and said it was issued in view of a recommendation made by the Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board.
Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, prohibits advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani drugs without approval from state licensing authority. In a previous hearing the top court came down heavily on Centre and asked it to explain why it issued such a letter. Following which the Centre yesterday filed an affidavit before the top court defending this letter. However, after the the top court rebuked Centre's response today, it agreesd to withdraw the letter.
SC Asks Ramdev, Patanjali To Explain Why Misleading Ads Still Continue On Channels
The top court today resumed hearing the misleading advertisements case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Ramdev's Patanjali Ayurveda and also expressed displeasure at continuation of misleading advertisements on various channels, internet and websites.
The court questioned Ramdev's Patanjali as to what it is doing to ensure that those agencies that are playing those ads stop running them. Patanjali informed the court that it shall come ready with a plan to deal with those misleading advertisements in the next hearing.
In the previous hearing, the Uttarkhand government had told the court that it has suspended the manufacturing licenses of 14 products of Patanjali manufactured by Divya Pharmacy and filed a criminal complaint against the company, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.
Today, the top court asked Patanjali why the ads for these products continue and what action it is taking to ensure they stop running.
SC Orders Broadcasters, Advertisers To File Self-Declaration
In a significant development, the Supreme Court after hearing the case ordered the broadcasters to file a self-declaration form before carrying any advertisements, assuring that the advertisement to be carried on its platform complies with Cable Network Rules, Advertising Code etc.
"As a tide over measure, we deem it appropriate to direct that a self declaration be obtained before an advertisement is permitted ... self-declaration is to be obtained for advertisement on the lines of 1994 Cable TV Network Rules, Advertising Code etc," the bench said.
Supreme Court further emphasised that Celebrities, Social Media Influencers are equally liable for misleading advertisements, if they endorse any deceptive product or service.
"We are of the opinion that the advertisers or the advertising agencies or endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and misleading advertisements."
Top Headlines
