Last Updated on July 31, 2024 by News Desk
The Supreme Court has criticized the Centre, states, and Union territories for not using legal mechanisms against manufacturers of drugs, cosmetics, and health products indulging in misleading advertisements. Justice Hima Kohli noted significant gaps in the implementation of three health sector laws: Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act (DMR), Drugs and Cosmetics Act (DCA), and Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The absence of action taken by states and Union territories in initiating prosecution and penalties against defaulting manufacturers under these laws leaves common citizens helpless and in the dark about the action taken on their complaints.The court passed an order directing the Ministry of Ayush to create a centralised dashboard where citizens across the country can access information about the action taken on their complaints. The bench was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved and its proponent Baba Ramdev, pointing out how some of the advertisements of drugs produced by the company violated provisions of the DMR and DCA.IMA counsel Prabhas Bajaj pointed out that on April 15, the Uttarakhand licensing department banned 14 Ayurvedic products of Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy for promising cures that went contrary to the DMR and DCA but were still available for sale across the counter. Senior advocate Balbir Singh appearing for Patanjali pointed out that on July 1, the Uttarakhand government passed an order lifting the ban after an expert committee found procedural lapses in the April 15 decision by the licensing authority.The court granted the state another two weeks to take a final decision on the ban on Patanjali products while posting the matter on August 20. Advocate Vanshaja Shukla representing Uttarakhand informed the court that the final decision of the state is awaiting legal opinion from the advocate general.On the larger issue to plug gaps in the implementation of the law relating to misleading advertisements, the court received a voluminous note prepared by advocate Shadan Farasat, assisting the court as amicus curiae. The court had previously indicated that it did not intend to restrict the scope of consideration to Patanjali and directed responses to be filed by all states and Union Territories on handling of complaints under the three laws, focusing on consumer health and well-being.
ASCI has been tasked with addressing misleading advertisements in the country. The council has dealt with 60,000 complaints of misleading ads in TV and print media, securing 98% compliance. The bulk of these complaints are related to health and health products. The GAMA portal received 728 complaints of misleading advertisements and violation of programme code against private broadcasters. The Ministry of Ayush, which signed an MoU with ASCI in 2017, received 732 cases in one year. The National Pharmacovigilance Centre generated 36,040 reports of misleading advertisements and forwarded 31,238 reports to various states. The top court has directed advertisers and advertising agencies to submit a “self-declaration certificate” before publishing or broadcasting any advertisement. The ministry of information and broadcasting has introduced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal for TV and radio advertisements and on the Press Council of India’s portal for print and digital/Internet advertisements. The proceedings began in 2022 when the Indian Medical Association (IMA) approached the court against disparaging remarks by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali against modern medicine.
