Introduction
The case of Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 645/2022) involves contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd for persistent dissemination of misleading advertisements, contravening a Court undertaking. This has prompted scrutiny by the Supreme Court, highlighting concerns about regulatory enforcement and public health.
Background and History
Patanjali Ayurved’s marketing practices, particularly regarding products like ‘Divya Madhunashini Vati’ and ‘Divya Madhugrit Tablet’ claiming to treat diabetes, have drawn legal attention. Despite warnings and a Bombay High Court interim order, Patanjali persisted with its advertising. The Supreme Court’s involvement stems from the alleged inaction of the Uttarakhand licensing authority, despite being informed of Patanjali’s misleading ads since 2018.
Key Aspects
- Misleading Advertisements-Patanjali’s products, including ‘Divya Madhunashini Vati’ and others, face legal scrutiny for their claims of medical efficacy, potentially violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
- Legal Scrutiny-The Supreme Court, represented by Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, expressed dissatisfaction with the Uttarakhand licensing authority’s lack of action, despite being aware of the situation for several years.
- Contempt Proceedings-Patanjali and its executives, including Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, face contempt charges for disregarding court orders. The Court rejected apology affidavits, signaling a firm stance against violations of regulatory standards.
Legal Considerations
The case raises concerns about the enforcement of laws governing advertising of medicinal products and the responsibility of licensing authorities to uphold regulations. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the need to protect consumers from false claims and misleading advertisements, as mandated by the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
Conclusion
The case underscores the ongoing struggle to curb misleading advertising in the pharmaceutical industry and the judiciary’s role in upholding regulatory standards. With the Court’s refusal to accept apologies and its directives for further explanations from authorities, it demonstrates a commitment to enforcing laws aimed at safeguarding public health and ensuring transparency in marketing medicinal products. The upcoming hearing on April 16 is expected to provide further clarity on the actions to be taken against Patanjali and its affiliates.
SOURCE –
