Inaction Against Misleading Medical Ads- Supreme Court Warns Contempt Proceedings

New Delhi: Warning the States and Union Territories for their failure to take action against misleading advertisements and medical claims against law, the Supreme Court recently warned to initiate contempt proceedings against them.

"We make it clear that every find non-compliance by any of the states and union territories we may have to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the concerned States," clarified the top court bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The Apex Court made these observations while considering a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against misleading claims and advertisements targeting modern or "allopathic" medicine.

Last year on May 7, the Supreme Court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to file affidavits of their Licensing authorities regarding the action taken by them since 2018 against misleading advertisements that violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Thereafter, on July 30, 2024, the Court issued directions to all the State Governments/Union Territories to explain their inaction in imposing penalties and deterrents for compliance with the statutes.

Also Read: SC rejects apology of Ramdev, MD Balkrishna in misleading ads case

During the hearing of the case yesterday, the Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat highlighted that under Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, only the remedy of prosecution was available against violators. However, the States filed affidavits indicating a lack of enforcement, with no prosecutions being pursued, Live Law has reported.

At this outset, Justice Oka observed that the Delhi Government's explanation that identifying offenders was challenging was "peculiar". Addressing the counsel for the Goa Government, Justice Oka questioned why no action had been taken based on the complaints received. Similarly, the Court questioned Karnataka for failing to explain the steps taken to identify 25 unnamed offenders. Further, the bench noted that in Pondicherry, action was not taken though there were complaints.

"We will take contempt action now if we find such response by the states," remarked the Justice.

In this regard, the Court laid out a compliance schedule for the States and Union Territories.

In the case of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, and Jammu and Kashmir- the court noted that the compliance was to be reviewed on February 10, 2025, and additional affidavits had to be submitted by February 03, 2025. Further, the Court observed that copies of affidavits had to be furnished to the Amicus Curiae who can compile and submit a report.

For the States including Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Pondicherry, and Punjab:

The Court noted that the compliance had to be reviewed on February 24, 2025, further affidavits had to be filed by February 17, 2025.

For the remaining States and Union Territories:

The top court bench observed that the compliance would be considered on March 17, 2025, and it was mandatory to file the affidavits by March 3, 2025.

Also Read: No further action is Contemplated: SC Closes Contempt Proceedings Against IMA President

Meanwhile, the Court separately discharged contempt proceedings against the IMA President RV Asokan regarding the remarks made in a media interview. Dr. Asokan had made comments concerning a Supreme Court observation in a case that involved IMA. However, later, he expressed his regret for his statement, clarifying that it was never his intention to undermine the dignity of the Court.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan perused the affidavits filed by Asokan tendering an unconditional apology and ordered, "In view of the apology tendered and affidavits filed..., no further action is contemplated."

Also Read: Is your Apology the same size as your advertisement? SC slams Baba Ramdev

Background: 

The case proceedings originated from a plea by IMA seeking regulation of medical advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Thereafter, the Court initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved, its MD Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev for violating the previous order of the Court undertaking against publishing misleading ads.

The Supreme Court on May 7, 2024, passed directions for comprehensive measures to curb misleading advertisements. In this regard, the top court bench Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah ordered, 

• Advertisers and public figures endorsing products are equally accountable under the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines. Guideline 13 emphasized due diligence by endorsers.

• Advertisers to submit self-declaration forms, as per the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, before airing advertisements. These forms must be uploaded to the Broadcast Seva Portal of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. A similar portal for press and print media was to be established within four weeks.

Previously, the Court had asserted that the fundamental right to health included a consumer's right to know the quality of products. Advertisers were required to follow Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, ensuring advertisements did not offend decency or mislead consumers.

Also Read: Your apology...more of a lip service: SC Slams Baba Ramdev, Patanjali in Misleading Ads Case

Compliance by Ministry and Dashboard Proposal:

The Supreme Court, in its order dated July 30, 2024, directed the Ministry of AYUSH, alongside other ministries, to take steps against misleading advertisements and non-compliance with related statutes. Back then, it had proposed setting up a public dashboard for state-level complaint tracking and action.

Meanwhile, the AYUSH Ministry had issued a notification on July 1, omitting Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which prohibited advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs for disease-related claims. However, the Court had put a stay on this citing that it contradicted earlier orders requiring adherence to Rule 170.

Contempt proceedings were initiated against Patanjali since it published misleading ads despite the earlier orders issued by the Court. After this, Patanjali, Baba Ramdev, and Acharya Balkrishna published apologies. Consequently, the Court had closed the contempt proceedings against them on August 13, 2024.

Also Read: SC refuses to accept IMA president's Apology, Reserves verdict on Patanjali Misleading Ads case