In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has summoned the Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir to appear virtually on March 7, 2025, to explain their failure in implementing the Court’s orders against misleading medical advertisements. The Court noted that despite previous directives, these states had failed to comply, warranting further action.
"As far as the states of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Jammu, and Kashmir are concerned, we find that there is hardly any implementation of the orders passed by this Court… Notwithstanding several orders, these states remain non-compliant."– Supreme Court Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Court has granted these states time until the end of the month to file their affidavits detailing actions taken to enforce Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. If necessary, further legal action may be taken.
Background
This case stems from a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which sought legal action against misleading advertisements in the medical field, particularly those promoting Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs without proper regulatory approval.
Under Rule 170, advertising such medicines is prohibited unless approval is obtained from the relevant licensing authority. However, on August 29, 2023, the Ministry of AYUSH issued a directive preventing authorities from enforcing this rule, citing a recommendation from the Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB). This led to widespread concern over the lack of regulation in misleading medical advertisements.
On May 7, 2024, the Supreme Court sought clarification from the Union Government regarding this directive. The Central Government initially promised to withdraw the directive but instead issued a notification on July 1, 2024, formally omitting Rule 170.
Finding this move contradictory to its earlier order, the Supreme Court stayed the notification, declaring:
"Till further orders, the effect of the notification dated July 1, 2024, omitting Rule 170 shall stand stayed. In other words, till further orders are passed, Rule 170 shall remain in the statute book."
The Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, emphasized that full enforcement of Rule 170 across all states and Union Territories (UTs) would effectively address the issue of misleading Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani advertisements.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed all State/UT governments to submit affidavits detailing the actions taken against misleading medical advertisements under various laws, including:
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Despite repeated warnings, the states of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, and Jammu & Kashmir failed to take action, prompting the Court to demand explanations and issue summons to the Chief Secretaries of AP, Delhi, and J&K.
Justice Oka remarked that summoning Chief Secretaries directly is the most effective way to ensure compliance:
"Our experience sitting on this side is that this is the most effective way of ensuring compliance. Once we summon Chief Secretaries, things move very smoothly. We don't summon them personally here… but if the need arises, we will."
On May 7, 2024, the Supreme Court had issued strict guidelines to curb misleading medical advertisements:
Public figures and advertisers were held accountable under the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines.
Advertisers were mandated to submit self-declaration forms under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, before airing advertisements.
The Broadcast Seva Portal was designated for electronic ad submissions, and a similar portal for press and print media was ordered to be created within four weeks.
These measures aimed to ensure better regulation and prevent misleading claims that could harm public health.
The Supreme Court’s actions also stemmed from an earlier contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., which was accused of violating court orders against misleading advertisements.
Despite repeated warnings, Patanjali continued publishing misleading ads. Following this, the company, along with its co-founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, issued public apologies, which the Court accepted. As a result, the contempt proceedings against Patanjali were closed on August 13, 2024.
Similarly, IMA President Dr. RV Asokan faced contempt proceedings for making critical remarks about the Supreme Court’s actions. On August 27, 2024, the Court directed that physical copies of apology advertisements be published in major newspapers like The Hindu. However, the Court was dissatisfied with the size and presentation of the apologies and sought further compliance.
Eventually, the Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against both Patanjali and the IMA President after receiving their formal apologies.
Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2022