The Supreme Court on July 9 recorded Patanjali Ayurved’s submission that it has instructed its exclusive and franchise stores to remove 14 of its herbal medicines, of which licences were suspended, from their shelves.
Patanjali said media outlets associated with it or those specially engaged by the company were asked to stop broadcasting advertisements about the 14 concoctions in any form.
“Industry should not suffer in any manner… The government has to continue to churn out ideas to address the issue,” Justice Kohli said.
The court had said that little or nothing was actually known about the action taken against false advertisements under the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements of Misleading Advertisements, 2022.
The Guidelines deal with prohibition of surrogate advertising, free claims advertisements, advertisements targeting children, and advertisements that are prohibited by law.
The Supreme Court on July 9 recorded Patanjali Ayurved’s submission that it has instructed its exclusive and franchise stores to remove 14 of its herbal medicines, of which licences were suspended, from their shelves.
The company co-founded by self-styled yoga guru Baba Ramdev, who is facing contempt proceedings for endorsing misleading advertisements in violation of the orders of the top court, said requests were also made to social media intermediaries and e-commerce platforms to pull out advertisements on these products.
Patanjali said media outlets associated with it or those specially engaged by the company were asked to stop broadcasting advertisements about the 14 concoctions in any form.
However, a Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta directed Patanjali to file an affidavit in two weeks, stating whether or not the social media intermediaries have actually withdrawn the advertisements on Patanjali’s request.
Meanwhile, the court clarified that its May 7 order, directing advertisers to submit self-declarations that they are not misrepresenting or making false claims about products, especially in the health and food sectors, before promoting them in the electronic, print, or online media was not meant to harass the advertising industry.
“The intention was not to cause any harassment to anybody. It was only to focus on particular sectors and aspects,” Justice Kohli explained.
Groups like the Advertising Association of India and the Internet and Mobile Association of India have applied to intervene in the top court seeking further clarification of the May 7 order.
The Bench asked the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to hold a brainstorming session with industry stakeholders along with the Consumer Affairs Ministry and the Health Ministry against the backdrop of the May 7 order, which was meant as a “tide-over measure” to overcome the lack of a strong regulatory mechanism to address the issue of misleading advertisements and pin accountability.
“Industry should not suffer in any manner… The government has to continue to churn out ideas to address the issue,” Justice Kohli said. The Centre was ordered to file an affidavit detailing the outcome of the meeting in three weeks.
Earlier hearings based on a contempt petition filed by the Indian Medical Association had witnessed the court pull up Patanjali, Ramdev, and his associate Acharya Balkrishna for airing claims that their products cure everything from diabetes, obesity to liver dysfunction and even COVID-19 during the months of pandemic in “deliberate and willful violations” of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954 and its Rules.
The May 7 order had made self-declaration under Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 mandatory before displaying, printing, or airing advertisements after holding that the “fundamental right to health encompasses the right of a consumer to be made aware of the quality of products being offered for sale by manufacturers, service providers, advertisers and advertising agencies”. Advertisers intending to run advertisements in TV channels have to upload their self-declarations on the ‘Broadcast Seva’ portal of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry.
The court had said that little or nothing was actually known about the action taken against false advertisements under the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements of Misleading Advertisements, 2022. The Guidelines deal with prohibition of surrogate advertising, free claims advertisements, advertisements targeting children, and advertisements that are prohibited by law. They also specifically define “bait advertisements”, “endorser”, and “surrogate advertising”.
