'Public Figures Should Act Responsibly While Endorsing Consumer Product': SC in Patanjali's Case

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said that it is imperative for celebrities to act with responsibility while endorsing any product in the course of advertisement and taking responsibility for the same.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it is crucial for celebrities and public figures to act responsibly while endorsing a consumer product, and asked the Union ministries concerned to bring on record misleading advertisements and the action taken or proposed to be taken against them by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah sent a strong signal on misleading advertisements and directed that before an advertisement is permitted to be issued, a self-declaration be obtained from advertisers on the line of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, which mandates advertisements to comply with the country's laws.

The bench asked the Centre's ministries to update it on misleading advertisements and the corresponding actions taken by the CCPA. The bench said that endorsements by celebrities, influencers and public figures go a long way in promoting products. "It is imperative for them to act with responsibility while endorsing any product in the course of advertisement and taking responsibility for the same," observed the bench.

The top court also queried the Centre on why it asked AYUSH authorities in states and union territories not to take any action against misleading advertisements under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Centre contended that since the Rule was yet to be reconsidered and since an advisory body had recommended its removal, it had called for states to refrain from invoking it against misleading advertisements.

"Without taking a decision (on reconsidering Rule 170), why are you saying don't take action under Rule 170? The High Court had directed you to take a decision. As of now, the law is still there. Why without taking a decision, you said don't take steps under Rule 170?" the bench queried the Centre's counsel. The Centre's counsel assured the court that a final decision on Rule 170 would be taken at the earliest.

The bench also termed as "very, very unacceptable" the statements made by Indian Medical Association (IMA) president R V Asokan targeting the top court in a recent interview to a news agency. Asokan was answering questions regarding Patanjali's misleading advertisements case.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali, submitted that they have filed an application urging the court to take judicial notice of the "wanton and unwarranted comments" made by the IMA president. Rohatgi said in the last hearing, he had handed over to the court the transcript of the interview which was published in newspapers. "You can't say you don't know," the bench told the IMA's counsel.

IMA's counsel said it was "rather not very fortunate". "Your president gave an interview on the eve of the hearing. Why on the eve of the hearing?" the bench asked.

The bench has scheduled the matter for further hearing on May 14. The apex court was hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali and yoga guru Ramdev against the COVID vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine.

Read More