‘Entire country taken for ride’: SC bars Patanjali from issuing misleading ads

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, made a stern observation regarding Patanjali Ayurved, a company co-founded by yoga guru Ramdev, stating that the entire country has been “taken for a ride”. The court restrained Patanjali Ayurved from advertising or branding products intended for treating diseases until further notice.

Issuing notices to Patanjali Ayurved and managing director Acharya Balkrishna, the SC asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for prima facie violating the firm’s undertaking given in the court about advertising of its products and their medicinal efficacy.

A bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also cautioned the company and its officers against making any media statements, both in print and electronic, against any system of medicine in any form as stated in their undertaking on November 21 last year.

“The entire country has been taken for a ride,” the bench observed, while questioning the Centre as to what action it has taken against Patanjali Ayurved for the alleged incorrect assertions and misrepresentation in advertisements about its medicines as cure of several diseases. The top court is hearing a plea of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign by Ramdev against the vaccination drive and modern medicines.

On November 21 last year, the counsel representing the company had assured the court that “henceforth there shall not be any violation of any law(s), especially relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it and, further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form”.

The top court had then cautioned the company against making “false” and “misleading” claims in advertisements about its medicines as cure of several diseases.

During the hearing on Tuesday, the top court referred to the statement given by the counsel representing Patanjali Ayurved before it in November last year and said it was “bound down” to such assurance by the court.

Consequently, the Supreme Court prohibited Patanjali Ayurved from advertising or branding products aimed at treating specified diseases, disorders, or conditions under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 till further orders. The court demanded explanations from the company and its management, considering the apparent disregard for its previous directives.

The bench also rebuked the government for its delayed response, emphasizing the urgency of addressing such violations. While the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj attributed the responsibility to state governments under the Act, the court highlighted the need for proactive monitoring and enforcement.

“For two years, you wait for this when the Act itself says it is prohibited,” the bench said.

The bench also took exception to one of the advertisements published by Patanjali after the November last year order of the apex court.

“You (Patanjali) have flouted this order (of November 2023),” it said. “You have this courage and guts to come up with this advertisement even after the Supreme Court’s order… We are going to pass a very strict order. You are tempting the court”.

The counsel appearing for Patanjali sought time to file a response to the notice. The bench, while granting time to file a response, posted the matter for hearing on March 19.

During the hearing, the bench asked the ASG about what consultations had taken place after the last hearing and whether it was verified that there were incorrect assertions and representations regarding medicinal efficacy.

The ASG said consultation of different agencies was required in the matter. “Under this Act, the power or the duty is also cast that you have to keep monitoring, and you can’t or should not wait for a complaint to come,” the bench said, while terming it unfortunate.

When the counsel appearing for Patanjali said a complete ban on its advertisements may not be fair, the bench observed, “How can we make it conditional when you yourself are not adhering to your undertaking”.

Patanjali’s counsel informed the bench that they have set up a research laboratory at a cost of nearly Rs 40 crore.

“You have done a research, that is good. There is a system. We respect all the systems, but we expect the others, who are following a particular system, also to respect others,” the bench said.With agency inputs