Misleading Medical Ads Case: SC disposes IMA plea, lifts stay on AYUSH ad Pre-approval rule

New Delhi: Disposing of the Indian Medical Association's plea challenging misleading claims in advertisements of traditional medicine, the Supreme Court recently vacated its earlier stay that had kept in force a stricter pre-approval requirement for such ads.

The Apex Court bench has now vacated the interim order staying the omission of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which prohibits advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani drugs without licensing authorities' approval.

A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan observed, "The prayers sought for have been achieved in as much as the reliefs have been granted by the court. We find that no object and purpose would be served in considering the petition any further. Hence the writ petition stands disposed of. However liberty is reserved to the parties/intervention applicants to seek relief in accordance with law if they have any grievance with regard to the omission of Rule 170. Consequently the interim order dated 27th August 2024 stands vacated."

Also Read: Supreme Court calls for mechanism for complaints Against Misleading medical Ads

As per the latest media report by Live Law, the Supreme Court reserved liberty to all parties to seek relief in accordance with law if they have any grievance regarding the omission of Rule 170 and kept all contentions open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings.

On July 1, 2024, the AYUSH Ministry notified the deletion of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which had mandated State licensing authority pre-approval for advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicines, UNI has reported.

Rule 170, introduced to prevent exaggerated claims, was stayed by a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta in August 2024, keeping the pre-approval requirement alive during the litigation.

During the hearing of the case on Monday, Amicus Curiae Shadan Farasat argued that the rule continued to be implemented by states post-stay, while Justice Viswanathan questioned how a rule deleted by the Centre could still be enforced.

Justice Nagarathna observed that the court could not legislate or revive an omitted provision and noted that the reliefs initially sought by the IMA had already been achieved.

Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for an intervenor, urged maintaining the August 2024 status quo, warning that misleading ads could harm gullible patients.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that a statutory and self-regulatory framework already existed to check false claims, rendering Rule 170 unnecessary. The Bench further noted that banning advertisements while allowing the manufacture of AYUSH products would amount to unfair trade practice.

Accordingly, disposing of the plea, the Court vacated its August 2024 stay, granting liberty to approach the High Court over grievances regarding the omission of Rule 170.

Live Law has reported that the court observed that the writ petition could be closed as the original grievance in the plea had been addressed by various previous orders including an order dated March 26, 2025 by which the Court issued a series of directions to state governments to implement the Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

Background:

IMA had filed the plea against Patanjali Ayurveda over advertisements that allegedly disparaged modern medicine. Earlier, the Court had imposed a temporary ban on such ads, questioned regulatory inaction, and initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali's promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, before closing the contempt matter following multiple apologies. During the case proceedings, larger issues emerged, including misleading medical ads by other companies and unethical practices in modern medicine.

Back in August 2023, the AYUSH Ministry had directed all State/UT licensing authorities and drug controllers not to take action under Rule 170, pending a proposal to omit it. On May 7, 2024, the Union Government submitted before the Court that it would withdraw this letter, but instead issued the July 1, 2024 notification omitting the Rule. This led to the August 27, 2024 stay by a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, which held that the omission "flies in the face" of its earlier directions and ordered to keep Rule 170 in force until further orders. The issue also concerned the enforcement of the DMR Act, which prohibits objectionable advertisements of drugs and magic remedies.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that on March 26, 2025, a bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjay Bhuyan set a two-month deadline for the states and union territories to create a grievance redressal mechanism to deal with complaints against such ads.

The States were directed to implement the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act- including appointing gazetted officers under Section 8, creation of grievance redressal mechanisms, and police sensitisation. The Court had stressed that, despite being over 70 years old, the Act was not implemented in letter and spirit and therefore warned of harm such advertisements could cause.

Further, the Apex Court had directed the National Legal Services Authority to conduct awareness programmes, required states to publicise complaint mechanisms, and asked the Union to develop a dashboard for tracking action against misleading advertisements. The states and the Union were directed to report compliance by June 2025. Meanwhile, contempt proceedings against Patanjali and IMA President Dr. RV Asokan were closed after apologies were tendered and accepted.

Also Read: Misleading Medical Ads- Supreme Court issues 6 directives, details