Supreme Court asks Patanjali whether its misleading ads have been taken down from social media platforms

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Patanjali Ayurved whether it has taken steps to ensure that its misleading advertisements remaining on social media platforms are taken down [Indian Medical Association and anr v. Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta asked Patanjali to inform the Court whether any social media company has failed to comply with the directive to take down such ads from their platforms. The Court also sought confirmation from Patanjali on whether of its products, whose licences were suspended, have been removed from sale. "Emails have been sent to all the franchise stores and partner stores also to remove the medicines including alerts on social media. But what was done after the intermediaries were informed? There are only a handful of intermediaries, not thousands. Let respondent number 5 (Patanjali) inform on affidavit that social media company has complied with the requests and that all 14 medicines have been removed. File the reply in two weeks," the Court said today. .The Court was dealing with a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which had sued Patanjali over misleading advertisements that targeted allopathic medicine.The Court's focus was initially on Patanjali's misleading ads, the failure of regulatory authorities to act against Patanjali, and the corrective steps to be taken by Patanjali and its promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.Ramdev and Balkrishna eventually tendered apologies to the Court for failing to halt the publication of misleading advertisements.In May, the Court reserved its verdict on whether Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna should be held guilty of or punished for contempt of court.Additionally, the duo were directed to file an affidavit on steps taken to pull down remaining misleading ads and to recall Patanjali products whose licenses had been suspended after the Court's censure.The Court was told today that Patanjali has halted the supply of 14 ayurvedic medicines and that its franchise stores have also been directed to withdraw these products from sale. Print and media platforms associated with Patanjali were also instructed to not issue any advertisements on these medicines, the Court was informed.The Court, however, asked Patanjali to give information on whether already existing ads on these products have been removed from circulation..Notably, the Court had earlier expanded the scope of the case beyond Patanjali products and deliberated on several larger issues, including misleading advertisements by other consumer goods suppliers and unethical practices in modern medicine.The Court also warned that social media influencers and celebrities would be held equally liable if they were found endorsing products or services in misleading advertisements.To curb misleading ads, the Court called for the government to require advertisers to issue self-declarations on the genuineness of advertisements before their publication on any platform. The Central government responded by issuing such a directive in June this year.However, stakeholders in the media and advertising industry (Indian Society of Advertisers, Internet and Mobile Association of India, and Indian Newspapers Association) have now registered protest that the Central government issued the directive without due consultation.Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj today assured the Court that the Central government will take care of these concerns and that it has been meeting with stakeholders.The Court recorded the assurance and added that the Union Department for Consumer Affairs should also be made a part of these meetings which are being held by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.The Bench further clarified that the intention of the Court was not to harass the advertising industry but to ensure accountability in advertising."The intention is not to harass anyone but to look at all the sectors. If such a meaning is being derived then it will be clarified," the Bench said..Notably, the Bench today also appointed advocate Shadan Farasat as an amicus curiae to assist the Court in collating data submitted by various State governments on the steps taken by it against unlicenced products and misleading advertisements. Further, the attention of the Bench was also drawn to an apology published by the IMA over its President's earlier critical comments against the Supreme Court. IMA President Dr RV Asokan was earlier in the dock after he commented, during an interview with PTI, that it was "unfortunate" that the Supreme Court had also criticised the IMA while hearing the case against Patanjali. The Court had taken strong exception to the statement, prompting Dr. Asokan to apologise. The IMA has now published prominent apologies in newspapers and its website, the Court was told today. "If the IMA website is opened, there is a pop up of this apology and PTI also published it along with economic times etc.," Senior Advocate PS Patwalia told the Bench today. .Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh represented Patanjali and its promoters. .[Read live coverage]