Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
SC Raps States Over Non-Compliance In Misleading Drug Ads Case; Summons Chief Secretaries Of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi And J&K
|The Apex Court was hearing the Writ Petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), in which Patanjali was restrained from advertising or branding some of its products.
The Supreme Court today pulled up multiple states for failing to implement its orders regarding the regulation of misleading advertisements related to allopathic and alternative medicines.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir to appear via video conferencing on March 7 to explain the non-compliance.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking action against misleading advertisements promoting allopathic medicines.
Justice Oka sternly remarked that summoning state secretaries was the most effective way to ensure compliance, adding, “We don’t summon them personally unless necessary, but if the need arises, we will do so.”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj appeared for the Union of India.
States Criticized for Inadequate Enforcement
At the outset, the Bench questioned Andhra Pradesh’s approach of merely obtaining undertakings from violators instead of taking legal action.
“Your response states that only 15 cases were filed in six years, and you are merely taking undertakings from wrongdoers that they won’t repeat their actions. This is a very strange way of enforcement,” Justice Oka said.
Delhi also faced scrutiny for its claim that it was unable to trace the publishers of misleading advertisements. Goa, too, admitted to taking similar undertakings from violators instead of prosecuting them.
Justice Oka called this practice a “very strange procedure,” while Goa’s counsel assured that the state would now implement the law correctly.
Gujarat and Goa Submit Additional Affidavits
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing as Amicus Curiae, noted that Gujarat had filed an additional affidavit indicating 19–22 ongoing prosecutions but failed to clarify if any convictions had taken place.
Justice Oka directed that the latest affidavit be placed on record before further examination.
Enforcement of Rule 170 in Focus
The Court emphasized that effective implementation of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, was key to curbing misleading advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicines. It noted that despite previous orders, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir remained non-compliant.
The Court directed all five states—Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, and Jammu & Kashmir—to file fresh affidavits detailing their enforcement measures.
Court’s Directives and Next Hearing
The Court set a deadline for states to submit their affidavits by the end of the month, with the next hearing scheduled for March 7. It also deferred issuing directions regarding Goa and Gujarat until their further affidavits were examined.
Justice Oka’s Strong Observations
Concluding the hearing, Justice Oka remarked, “Our long experience sitting on this side tells us that once we summon secretaries, everything becomes very smooth. This is a sufficient signal for them to take this matter seriously.”
Last Hearing
The Court had reviewed submissions made by Amicus Curiae Shadan Farasat, who highlighted the lack of prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the relevant law, as per state affidavits. “No prosecutions are happening, and many states cite difficulties in identifying offenders,” the Senior Counsel had submitted.
Justice Oka had questioned the inadequate steps taken by states, pointing out that responses like the Delhi Government's claim of difficulty in identifying offenders and Karnataka's explanation regarding unidentified offenders were unsatisfactory. "Why not take action based on complaints received?" the Bench asked.
Previous Court Proceeding
Pertinently, in August 2024, the Bench led by Justice Hima Kohli had raised concerns over the minuscule font size of an apology published by Dr. R. V. Asokan, President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), in connection with a contempt notice issued against him. The notice was related to the remarks he made in a press interview about the Apex Court while the IMA's plea against Patanjali Ayurved was still pending.
The Bench had also considered the issue of misleading health claims by FMCG companies through advertisements done by them. The amicus informed the Bench that some States/UTs have not filed the requisite affidavit as per the last orders of the Court. He had informed the Bench that Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu and Sikkim have not filed the affidavit.
Earlier, on August 6, the Court had deferred an order in show cause contempt notice issued to the IMA President. "After addressing the submission for some time, Mr. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, appearing for the proposed contemnor (Asokan), states that orders may be deferred on the contempt petition initiated against him by this Court to enable the proposed contemnor to take appropriate steps to purge himself of the contempt," the Court had noted. "Without making any observations on the submissions made before this Court today, at the request of learned Senior Counsel, list on August 27," the Bench had ordered.
It is to be noted that on August 13, the Court discharged the Contempt Notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case. While closing the contempt proceedings against the duo, the Court had said that it is accepting the unconditional apology tendered by them. The Court had also warned them not to violate Court's orders in future. The Court had underscored that an undertaking, whether made explicitly in writing or orally and recorded in the court order, holds the same force as a judicial order. Breaching such an undertaking is considered equivalent to contempt of court, similar to violating an injunction order. "An undertaking given to the Court has the same force as an order of the Court and breach thereof would amount to contempt in the same manner as a breach of an injunction," the Bench had ruled.
On July 9, the Court had said that its earlier order containing directions for self-declaration to be submitted by the advertisement industry should not adversely suffer on account of its directions. The Court had also appointed Advocate Shadan Farasat as an amicus for the limited purpose of collating all the data presented by states and presenting them before the Court. The Bench had also requested the Centre to convene a meeting with stakeholders and senior officials of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to resolve issues and difficulties faced by advertisers.
Earlier, on May 14, the Court had refused to accept the unconditional apology of the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Dr. R. V. Asokan, for his press interview containing remarks against the Supreme Court during the pendency of IMA's plea against Patanjali Ayurved with respect to misleading advertisements. Earlier, the Court had come down heavily on the President of IMA. The Court had said that all intention is shown by Dr. Asokan's conduct and had also inquired why no public apology has been made yet. The Bench had also reserved order in the Contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna in the case. The Court had also called for comradery between Allopathy and Ayurved.
On May 7, the Bench had issued notice to the present President of the IMA, impleaded him as a party to the plea filed by IMA against Patanjali Ayurved, and directed him to file an Affidavit. Earlier, the Court had pulled up the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and had 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."
In related news, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had issued a press release stating that in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 645/2022-Indian Medical Association & Anr. vs. . Union of India & Ors, requiring all advertisers and advertising agencies to furnish a 'Self-Declaration Certificate' before publishing or broadcasting any advertisement, the Ministry had introduced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal for TV and Radio Advertisements and on the Press Council of India's portal for Print and Digital/Internet Advertisements. This portal was activated on June 4, 2024.
Cause Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022]