Patanjali misleading ads: Supreme Court orders takedown of online ads, halt on sale of suspended products

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took critical note that misleading advertisements for Patanjali products, which have now been prohibited, were still available on certain online platforms. .A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked Patanjali's counsel if they were going to take any steps to take down the same. "We want to point out to you, that your misleading ads about your products that have now been prohibited...are still available on various channels on the internet – what are you doing to bring them down?" Justice Kohli asked. .Representing Patanjali, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh said that the company would come up with a plan to address this concern by the next hearing."A barrage of these ads were being posted on social media which was completely out of (Patanjali's) control. We are conscious, by next date we would come with a complete plan," he assured. .The Court also said that the company should not be allowed to sell products for which licences were suspended. "If licence is suspended, the product should not be sold. We have to give a notice (otherwise)! The moment it is suspended, from that day they cannot do. The same should be on hold. Take it off," Justice Amanullah observed. .The Court further pulled up one of the state licensing authorities for not ensuring that such products are taken off the shelves."By 14th May, we will show..." the counsel began to submit, before the Court said,"Don’t do everything only on our prodding! You have not asked them to withdraw? You have to tell that they cannot deal with (products whose license for sale was suspended). We are running out of patience with your officers...".The Court proceeded to reject an oral request to further exempt the personal appearances of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna of Patanjali. "We had exempted their appearance only for today. Please don't request for further exemption, sorry," Justice Kohli said. .The Court also called for the response of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) President on certain comments allegedly made against the Court in an April 29 media interview. The Court had taken strong exception to these comments, wherein the IMA President allegedly criticised the Court for "pointing fingers" at the association during an earlier hearing of the case.Referring to these statements, the Court today observed:"You (IMA) say other side (Patanjali Ayurved) is misleading, running your medicine down - but what were you doing? ... Let us make it clear, this court is not expecting any pats on the back. This court has also received its share of brickbats. We also have broad shoulders but..!"Senior Advocate PS Patwalia urged the Court to let him respond by May 14, while assuring that the IMA President's quotes were taken out of context and that he was sorry for having made statements. The Court eventually issued notice to the IMA President and asked him to respond by May 14. "Goes without saying, if notice issued, he is expected to be here," Justice Amanullah orally remarked. "Who are we to say? He should know better," Justice Kohli weighed in. As today's hearing drew to a close, the Court added,"Half the time, they (litigants) don’t respond because they don’t understand the seriousness and it is not communicated by the counsel. Very unfortunate that the other side (IMA) has now turned into these shoes.".The Court was hearing a petition filed by the IMA against an alleged smear campaign carried out by Patanjali and its founders against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.However, the scope of the case was eventually expanded to cover larger issues. The Court indicated that it wished to examine objectionable ads by other suppliers of consumer goods as well as unethical practices reported in the practice of modern medicine..In today's order, the Court also passed a slew of directions on the issue of misleading ads, including: - Broadcasters or print media to file a self-declaration form before carrying any advertisements, assuring that the advertisement to be carried on its platform complies with Cable Network Rules, Advertising Code etc. - Ministries need to set up a specific procedure which will encourage the consumer to lodge a complaint and for the said complaint to be taken to logical conclusion instead of simply being endorsed or marked. - Persons who endorses a product should have adequate information or experience with specific food product to be endorsed, and it must be ensured that it is must not be deceptive. - Celebrities and social media influencers will be equally liable for misleading ads, if they endorse any deceptive product or service. - The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution ordered to file fresh affidavit on action taken by Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on false or misleading ads, particularly in food and health sector.- The Court took on record that the Central government has decided to withdraw an August 2023 letter putting on hold the invocation of Rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 against misleading AYUSH ads. .Why did Centre tell states not to act on misleading AYUSH ads? Supreme Court asks.[Read order].[Read live coverage of hearing today]