Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS
         








Home / Editorial

Mercantile Law

Patanjali Case on Misleading Advertisement

    «    »
 01-Mar-2024

Source: Indian Express

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court delivered a resounding rebuke to Patanjali Ayurved, led by Baba Ramdev, in the case of the Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (2022). The Court's decision stemmed from Patanjali's dissemination of misleading advertisements, prompting a ban on its marketing activities until further notice.

What are Allegations Against Patanjali?

  • Initiation:
    • The Indian Medical Association (IMA) lodged a petition in August 2022 following Patanjali's publication of an advertisement denigrating allopathic medicine.
  • Title of Advertisement in Conflict:
    • Title of advertisement in conflict is MISCONCEPTIONS SPREAD BY ALLOPATHY: SAVE YOURSELF AND THE COUNTRY FROM THE MISCONCEPTIONS SPREAD BY PHARMA AND MEDICAL INDUSTRY
  • Reason Behind Fueling Controversy:
    • Ramdev's statements labeling allopathy as a "stupid and bankrupt science" and attributing Covid-19 deaths to allopathic medicine further fueled the controversy.
    • Additionally, there were accusations of spreading false information related to vaccine during Covid-19.

What are Legal Arguments Against Patanjali?

  • Violation of Laws:
    • The IMA contended that Patanjali's advertisements violated the Drugs & Other Magical Remedies Act, 1954 (DOMA), and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA).
  • Legal Provisions under DOMA:
    • Under Section 4 of the DOMA, publishing misleading advertisements regarding drugs is prohibited, punishable by imprisonment or fines.
    • It states that no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement relating to a drug if the advertisement contains any matters which—
      • directly or indirectly gives a false impression regarding the true character of the drug; or
      • makes a false claim for the drug; or
      • is otherwise false or misleading in any material particular
    • Section 7 of DOMA further states that Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall, on conviction, be punishable
      • in the case of the first conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both;
      • in the case of a subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
  • Legal Provisions of Consumer Protection Act:
    • Furthermore, Section 89 of the CPA imposes stringent penalties for false or misleading advertisements.
    • It states that any manufacturer or service provider who causes a false or misleading advertisement to be made which is prejudicial to the interest of consumers shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees; and for every subsequent offence, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty lakh rupees.
  • Role of Agreements:
    • Despite agreements between AYUSH and regulatory bodies, Patanjali persisted in flouting advertising regulations, violating the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Ministry of AYUSH and the Advertising Standards Council of India in January 2017.

What is the Response of the Supreme Court in Patanjali Case?

  • The SC, in its February 27 ruling, emphasized the seriousness of Patanjali's transgressions.
    • Despite prior warnings and assurances, Patanjali persisted in publishing misleading advertisements, prompting the Court to take decisive action.
  • The Court prohibited Patanjali from advertising or branding products addressing diseases specified in the DOMA and cautioned against adverse statements toward conventional medicine.
  • The court has fixed the hearing date for 19th March 2024.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the SC's verdict against Patanjali underscores the importance of ethical advertising and consumer protection. By holding corporations accountable for misleading practices, the Court upholds the integrity of the healthcare industry. Moving forward, regulatory bodies and corporations must adhere to stringent advertising standards to safeguard public health and trust.