Patanjali misleading ads: SC says looking at other FMCG firms too, flags ‘food for babies, children’
The court was hearing a contempt case against Patanjali for allegedly flouting its orders in a matter in which it has been sued by the Indian Medical Association (IMA).
5 min read
The Supreme Court had issued a contempt of court notice to Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, Managing Director, Patanjali, for allegedly flouting an undertaking given to it on November 21, 2023. (File Photo)While directing Patanjali Ayurved to place on record its apology published in newspapers over misleading advertisements, the Supreme Court Tuesday made it clear that it was also looking at other companies over the issue. A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked the Centre what action it had taken against fast-moving consumer goods companies for “misrepresenting advertisements” on items such as “foods for babies, children and elderly”.
The court — hearing a contempt case against Patanjali for allegedly flouting its orders in a matter in which it has been sued by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) — also told Patanjali’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, that it wanted to see “the actual size” of the apology published in the newspapers, as compared to the size of the misleading advertisements.
Stating that the matter was not just about one firm, Justice Kohli said: “We are not looking at the respondent alone as one standalone case, there are others on the other side who may not be before us, but after going through the kind of coverage that recently has been brought to our notice of the misrepresenting advertisements for things like foods for babies, children, which we now understand is under scrutiny by the Union, the Union will have to tell us something about it. We can’t let the public be taken for a ride. These are children, babies…”.
Justice Kohli said Centre and state licensing authorities need to “activate” themselves. “You can’t just shrug your shoulders and say I conveyed the complaint to state authority and it is for them to do what they are doing,” she told Additional Solicitor General K M Natarah who appeared for the Centre.
“Let us know against other FMCGs, what complaints you have received and what you have acted upon,” added Justice Amanullah.
Turning the heat on the IMA, the bench also sought to know what action it had taken against its own members who allegedly endorse medicines to patients for valuable consideration.
On the Patanjali case, the bench questioned the Centre over an August 2023 letter by the Ayush Ministry asking licensing authorities to not initiate any action under rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Rule 170 prohibits advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs without approval of licensing authorities.
“What has weighed with you to do this that you have decided that rule 170 will not henceforth be given effect and you will only tackle the menace of this Act which the respondent used to term as archaic on an earlier date? So then, where will the regulation be?” asked Justice Kohli.
Justice Amanullah asked: “Is it within your powers or jurisdiction to say that the law is there but don’t act till the time it’s taken to logical conclusion? Can you do that? Is it not an arbitrary and colourable exercise? Is it within your domain that when a law is there, passed duly by Parliament and you say don’t act then you are also liable to be proceeded against as better to that crime”.
The court directed that the Ministries of Consumer Affairs and Information and Broadcasting be made parties to the matter, saying it wanted to know about the applicability of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, on the media.
“What happens to the misleading advertisements regarding the print and electronic media? It appears that they are too busy looking at the revenue rather than looking at what exactly is being printed and advertised,” the court said.
Senior Advocate Rohatgi informed the bench that the company had issued advertisements on Monday in 67 newspapers with an unqualified apology.
The Bench asked Rohatgi if they were of the same size as those issued by the group earlier to advertise its products. Rohatgi responded in the negative and said the group will issue further advertisements.
Justice Kohli asked the senior counsel to “cut out the ads and then supply it to us” without enlarging. “We want to see the actual size. This is our direction… we want to see that when you issue an advertisement, it does not mean we have to see it with a microscope.”
Patanjali, which had been accused by IMA of issuing misleading advertisements and disparaging allopathy, had assured the court on November 21, 2023, that it would refrain from making such statements or issuing such advertisements.
But the very next day, Yoga guru Ramdev held a press conference in Haridwar which allegedly violated the undertaking. To add to the court’s ire, the company also issued an advertisement on December 4.
The SC then issued the contempt notice to Ramdev and Patanjali Managing Director Balkrishna for flouting the undertaking.
You May Like
