Both Ayurveda And Allopathy Should Co-Exist, We Don't Want To Get Into Their Inter Se Dispute: Centre Tells Supreme Court In IMA's Case Against Patanjali Ayurved

In its order, the Court referred to the Central Consumer Protection Authority under the Consumer Protection Act and directed that the said authority be put to use "vigorously". The Court noted in the order that endorsers in advertisements viz. public figures, influencers should act with responsibility when endorsing any product.  

The Court said that the Union Ministries should set up specific procedures to encourage consumers to lodge complaints and take them to a logical conclusion. The Court directed, as a tide-over measure, that a self-declaration be uploaded by advertisers on the lines of Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, Rule 7 on the Broadcast Seva Portal of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, before airing the advertisements on electronic media. For print media, the Ministry has been directed to create a new portal.  The advertiser should then inform the broadcaster about the submission of such a declaration. 

The Court directed that FSSAI should act proactively without waiting for complaints. 

The Court also directed that the Patanjali products whose license has been suspended should be taken out of the market and the old advertisements should also be taken down. 

The Bench was dealing with a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 by the IMA, wherein it alleged that the company engaged in a smear campaign against modern medicine and, at the time, Covid-19 vaccines. On the last hearing, the Court had come down heavily on the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and its current President Dr. R V Asokan, after it was pointed out by the Senior Counsel for Patanjali Ayurved that the IMA President has given an interview to the Economic Times criticising the Apex Court. 

The Court, at the outset, clarified that it is not dealing with Patanjali's apology today. The Counsel informed the Court that original newspapers containing the apology published by Patanjali, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna have been filed before the Court. The Court recorded the same. 

The Court called upon ASG K.M. Nataraj to address the Court. The ASG pointed out the affidavits that have been filed by the Centre. "Our policy is that both (Ayurveda and Allopathy) should co-exist. We don't want to get into their inter se dispute", he clarified at the outset.  

He then referred to the affidavit filed by the Ayush Ministry and said that a statutory expert body is reconsidering Rule 170 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 

Justice Kohli then said that till the rule is removed from the book, the Centre cannot call upon authorities not to enforce the rule. Justice Amanullah then said that the Court expected the Centre to withdraw the letter asking not to enforce the rule, after strong observations by the Court.

The Court then remarked that there has been a delay on the part of the centre in finalizing the process of reconsideration of the provision and that it is not correct to ask the authorities not to enforce the rule till then. The ASG told the Court that the Centre will finalize the proceedings soon and that it is presently handicapped due to the ongoing elections. 

While replying to a query by the Court, the ASG told the Court that the Centre is unable to do anything with respect to the non-implementation of the statute by States and their inaction with respect to complaints.

After perusing the affidavit filed by the Consumer Affairs Ministry, Justice Kohli remarked that there is no cohesion between different authorities in tracking what happens to complaints of consumers regarding advertisements. 

Justice Amanullah remarked that the authorities of the Central government do not have the teeth to implement the law. Justice Kohli remarked that though the Consumer is considered the 'King', when he becomes a complainant, he is not even informed what happens to his complaint. The Judge said that Consumers should have adequate remedies and should know what happens to their complaints, within a timeframe. 

Justice Amanullah also remarked that advertisements are not protected by freedom of press or freedom of speech and that it is a commercial activity. 

The Court then considered what is the action being taken against media houses with respect to illegal advertisements published by them. The Court expresses dissatisfaction with the existing mechanism for addressing the issue. The ASG responded by saying that the Centre prefers a self-regulatory mechanism when it comes to media. 

Last week, the Court had come down heavily on the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and its current President Dr. R V Asokan, after it was pointed out by the Senior Counsel for Patanjali Ayurved that the IMA President has given an interview to the Economic Times criticising the Supreme Court after the last hearing when Court had questioned the conduct of the IMA and its members. Earlier, on April 23, the Bench had pulled up the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and said, "While the Petitioner is pointing fingers at Patanjali, those other four fingers are pointing at you, because members of your Association have been busy endorsing medicines to their patients, left, right and centre."

On April 16, the Court had granted one week time to Baba Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna and Patanjali to issue a public apology, though it did not expressly mention that in the Order, and had directed the duo to be present in person on the next date of hearing as well. It is to be noted that on April 10, the Court had refused to accept the second Affidavit tendering an unconditional apology filed by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balkrishna over Patanjali Ayurved's alleged "misleading advertisements."

The Court had also pulled up the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for not taking action against Patanjali Ayurved for publishing 'misleading advertisements'. The Court had told the State Licensing Authority, "We will rip you apart," when Senior Counsel Dhruv Mehta appearing for the Authority submitted that it acted under bonafide impression regarding an order passed by the Bombay High Court about the regulation under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.

On April 2, the Bench had directed both Ramdev and Balakrishna to remain present before it on the next date. The Bench also granted them a last opportunity to file their affidavits in the matter in one week. It is to be noted that on March 19, the Court had directed Ramdev and Balakrishna to appear before it for the first time for not replying to the show cause notice issued to them in contempt proceedings.

On February 27, the Court had come down heavily on Patanjali Ayurveda conglomerate for persistently disseminating alleged misleading claims and advertisements targeting modern systems of medicine and restrained it from advertising or branding some of the products manufactured and marketed by it that were meant to address the ailments/diseases/conditions mentioned under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 and the Rules.

The Court had also expressed dissatisfaction with Patanjali Ayurved's then ongoing promotion of such misleading information, despite giving an assurance in November 2023. On the earlier occasion, the Court had orally told Senior Advocate PS Patwalia that it is focused on the cause and on any individual. Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya had then requested that the part of the order where the Court says that the issue is confined to Patanjali be corrected to say that the matter is not confined to Patanjali. Justice Amanullah said that Patanjali's case will be used as a test case, something to begin with for the present and that the exercise will not be limited to Patanjali.

Also, previously, the Bench had expressed its reluctance to turn the matter into a debate of "Allopathy vs. Ayurveda".

Cause Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022]