Patanjali Misleading Ads Case: Celebrities, Influencers On Supreme Court Radar
The court cautioned against the sale of Patanjali products for which licences have been suspended.
The Supreme Court emphasised on Tuesday the shared responsibility of advertisers, advertising agencies and endorsers in issuing false and misleading advertisements. During a hearing of the Patanjali misleading advertisements case, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed concern over the prevalence of such ads and proposed a precautionary measure.
It directed that a self-declaration be obtained before permitting any advertisement. This self-declaration process would align with existing regulations, such as the Cable TV Network Rules and Advertising Code.
The apex court was hearing the contempt case concerning misleading ads given by Patanjali Ayurved. The proceedings now concern the misleading ads given by other entities as well to sell consumer goods.
During the proceedings, the court also inquired about the complaints received by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India regarding misleading ads. Addressing the counsel representing Patanjali, it expressed concern about the continued presence of prohibited misleading ads on the internet.
Senior advocate Balbir Singh, representing Patanjali Ayurved's Ramdev, acknowledged the issue, saying that after the initial incident, there was a surge of such ads on social media platforms, and they are working to address it with a comprehensive plan by the next hearing.
The court cautioned against the sale of Patanjali products for which licenses have been suspended, emphasising that once a license is suspended, the product should not be sold.
The top court also decided to involve several key ministries in addressing the issue of misleading advertisements. The ministries of consumer affairs, information and broadcasting, and electronics and information technology were asked to respond regarding the measures taken to tackle misleading ads.
The bench acknowledged the responses received from the state licensing authorities regarding the steps taken to combat misleading ads under various laws. However, it directed those licensing authorities that had not yet responded to submit their responses, focusing on the period from 2018.
The court referred to a previous query addressed to the Union government regarding the Ministry of Ayush's August 2023 letter, which advised states not to take action under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, pending a final decision on whether to withdraw the rule as recommended by an expert body. Rule 170 prohibits advertisements of ayurvedic drugs without approval from licensing authorities.
The matter will now be taken up on May 14.
