The Supreme Court is examining the statement made by Indian Medical Association (IMA) president Dr RV Asokan, in which he described the court's oral observations in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case against allopathy practitioners as 'unfortunate' and 'very vague and general statement which has demoralised the doctors.' Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, representing Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, informed the court about the interview and stated that he would file an application seeking contempt against the IMA president. The Uttarakhand government has granted permission to file a complaint against Ramdev, Balkrishna, Divya Pharmacy, and Patanjali Ayurved Limited for repeated violations of the drug advertisements law and has suspended manufacturing licenses for 14 of their products. The Indian Medical Association has also sought action against Patanjali for violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Patanjali had previously given an undertaking to the top court, stating that it would not make any casual statements claiming the medicinal efficacy of its products or advertise or brand them in violation of the law, and would not release any statement against any system of medicine to the media in any form.
In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court stated that celebrities and social media influencers are equally liable for misleading advertisements if the commercial for the product or service featuring them is found to be deceptive. The court made this ruling while hearing the Patanjali Ayurved misleading advertisements case and also criticized the Indian Medical Association. The court emphasized the need for specific procedures to encourage consumer complaints and ensure their resolution. As a remedy, the court directed broadcasters to file a self-declaration form before carrying any advertisements to ensure compliance with relevant rules and codes. TV broadcasters can upload the declaration on the Broadcast Sewa portal, and a portal for the print media should be established within four weeks. The court clarified that it wants to ensure responsibility without excessive red tape for advertisers.
The Supreme Court questioned the Central government on why it asked AYUSH authorities in states and union territories not to take any action against misleading advertisements. The court also noted that misleading advertisements for Patanjali products, which have been prohibited, are still available online. The court ordered Patanjali to take down these ads. The court was hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association against a smear campaign by Patanjali Ayurved and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine. The court also discussed the complaint redressal mechanism for misleading ads and questioned the effectiveness of the current system. The case initially focused on misleading ads by Patanjali Ayurved but was expanded to cover larger issues related to objectionable ads and unethical practices in the healthcare industry. [a5609fd0]