New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will examine all FMCGs who have been issuing misleading advertisements and taking public for a ride, while expanding its judicial scrutiny into misleading health advertisements case, in the backdrop of the Patanjali row.
The apex court stressed that the Centre needs to activate itself, and look at the larger interest of consumers, which includes babies, children, and senior citizens. A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah made it clear that besides focusing on Patanjali Ayurved, the court will also examine the “alleged unethical practices” among allopathy, and it is not gunning for Yoga guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali.
During the hearing, the bench said that there are companies which are not before it but the kind of coverage which has been recently brought to our notice of the misrepresenting advertisements, which includes food for babies or children, “which now we understand are under scrutiny by the Union and Union will have to tell us something about it”.
The apex court's remarks came amidst reports about added sugar content in baby food sold by Nestle in India.
“We can let public taken for a ride there are children and babies…if that is happening then Union of India will need to activate itself, so do the state licensing authorities, who cannot shrug their shoulders and say I raised a complaint to the state authorities and it is for them to do what they are doing...," Justice Kohli said.
The bench decided to bring a large number of FMCG companies -- which have been taking the consumers, including babies, children and senior citizens, for a ride through misleading advertisements – under its scanner.
Justice Kohil told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj, representing the Centre, that it has pointed out several issues which the central government would have to deal with. “We are impleading Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, as respondents…the state licensing authorities across the country have to be impleaded…they will also have to deal with some aspects which we have raised today," said the bench. Justice Kohli said the court wants to look at the broader picture and it will not gun for only one FMCG.
The bench noted that apologies have been tendered by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali MD Acharya Balkrishna and the said advertisements are not on record. “Additional advertisements shall be issued by the proposed contemnors tendering unqualified apology for the lapses on their part….we are of opinion of that issue relating to implementation of the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and consumers act and relevant rules, need closer examination….."
“We make it clear that the proceedings are not just limited to the respondent (Patanjali) but all similarly situated FMCGs and drug companies issuing advertisements and taking the public for a ride, in particular babies, school going children, women and senior citizens”, said the bench, in its order.
The bench also shot a volley of questions at the Union government and asked it to file an affidavit explaining the actions taken by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for misleading advertisements. The apex court said the Union of India has to explain as to why it has issued a letter to all state licencing authorities on August 29, 2023 asking them not to take any action under Rule 170 of the Rules under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. "Is it not an arbitrary and colourable exercise?," the bench asked Centre’s counsel.
The apex court said it is necessary to implead Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ministry of Information and Technology to examine steps taken by these ministries to prevent the misleading advertisements.
Putting Indian Medical Association (IMA) in the dock, the bench said that there are several complaints regarding alleged unethical acts of members of the IMA prescribing medicines to the patients, both overpriced and unnecessary. Senior advocate P S Patwalia, representing the IMA, said his client will give the data. The bench suggested impleading National Medical Commission as a party in the matter.
Concluding the hearing in the matter, the apex court clarified that it is not gunning for a particular party, a particular agency, or a particular authority, and it is about the larger interest of consumers. “At the end of day, we say it is part of the process of rule of law….”, said the apex court. ASG Nataraj said the central government will not take an adversarial stand in the matter.
The apex court also sought to know who was the intervenor who sought Rs 1000 crore cost on IMA, saying, "We are very curious...He appears to be interloper than intervenor."
Meanwhile, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh, representing Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna, and Patanjali, asked for a week more to publish a fresh public apology in the media. The bench asked the counsel, is the apology the same size as your advertisements? The counsel replied that it costs lakhs and added that the apology was published in 67 newspapers.
The bench asked the counsel to cut the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. “We want to see the actual size of the ad. When you issue an apology, it does not mean that we have to see it with a microscope….”, said the bench.
The apex court was hearing a contempt case against Patanjali Ayurveda, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Swami Ramdev for publishing misleading medical advertisements in violation of an undertaking given to the apex court in November last year.
The IMA moved the apex court against Patanjali, demanding contempt action against Ramdev and Balkrishna for violating the court’s earlier directives on misleading advertisements and an undertaking given by Patanjali in this regard.
Rule 170 was meant to prohibit advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs without the ad being cleared by the licensing authority of the state where the manufacturer of the medicine is located or where the corporate office is located, in case the manufacturing is happening in more than one state.
Read More
