The Supreme Court has given a big relief to Patanjali and its promoters by closing the proceedings of a case related to misleading advertisements of traditional medicine. It has also removed the previous stay under which prior approval of the state was necessary for such advertisements.
The case began with a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurveda, citing advertisements that disparaged modern medicine and made unfounded health claims. The court had at one time imposed a temporary ban on such advertisements and initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.
After removing which rule was the stay order given?
In this case, a broader regulatory question arose after the Ministry of AYUSH deleted Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, in July 2024. This rule required advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines to be pre-approved by state licensing authorities to prevent exaggerated claims.
A Supreme Court bench had temporarily stayed the repeal of the rule, upholding the approval requirement in August 2024. However, on Monday, Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan quashed that order.
Now the court has overturned the decision
Justice Nagarathna said that the court cannot reinstate a rule after it has been legally removed by the Centre. He said that the judiciary does not have the right to implement or legislate on a rule after it has been passed.
Lawyers opposing the removal of this rule had argued that misleading claims could harm patients. A lawyer said that a large number of people are naive, “If you say that there is a cure for this disease in Ayurveda, people will get misled.”
What did the Supreme Court say?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the removal of the rule, saying that a statutory system already exists, “we should not doubt the intelligence of the common man.”
He further said that banning advertisements while allowing the manufacture of AYUSH products would be an “unfair trade practice”. The Supreme Court said that all preliminary reliefs sought in the IMA petition have been met, and the matter has been disposed of. Also, the parties have been allowed to approach the High Court to challenge the removal of Rule 170.
