The Supreme Court today closed the Indian Medical Association\u2019s (IMA) petition concerning alleged misleading statements and advertisements targeting the practice of allopathic medicine, observing that the reliefs sought had already been achieved. <\/p>\n
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan began the hearing with Justice Nagarathna stating, \u201cAll the reliefs sought in the prayers have already been achieved. We should close this now.\u201d<\/p>\n
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat requested that the status quo be maintained. Justice Nagarathna responded that the Court could neither legislate nor revive an omission. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in Ayurveda, advertisements could claim cures for diseases, luring patients away until it became incurable by the time they approached an allopathic doctor. Justice Nagarathna said, \u201cSo long as they are permitted to manufacture and they manufacture it, afterwards we can\u2019t say don\u2019t\u2026\u201d.Justice Nagarathna noted that in tobacco there is a statutory warning, while Justice Viswanathan observed that banning advertisements might amount to an unfair trade practice.<\/p>\n
Farasat submitted that products could not be advertised as a cure for cancer. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, \u201cThere\u2019s a statutory mechanism.\u201d <\/p>\n
Advocate Sachdeva highlighted the large illiterate population in the country. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked him whom he was representing, to which Sachdeva responded that he had filed an application. SG Mehta remarked, \u201cThis is not Jantar Mantar where anyone can just walk in. Let\u2019s not underestimate the intelligence of the common man.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Court said, \u201cWe close the matter. Keep all contentions open. Vacate the interim order. We are vacating the stay. Liberty is reserved. Whatever orders are passed is for the parties to make use in whatever way they want.\u201d Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted, \u201cI am not advertising anything. I\u2019m a platform. How can I be responsible. WhatsApp, Facebook etc. I should not be unnecessarily dragged into litigation.\u201d Farasat responded that he had no difficulty with that submission. Justice Nagarathna clarified that whatever relief parties sought regarding the omission of Rule 170 could be taken up before the High Court.<\/p>\n
The order records, \u201cThe prayer sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition… it is not in dispute that the relief sought for have been achieved in as much as by various orders passed by this Court. However, subsequently the Writ Petition has been considered on various dates and several orders have been passed. During the pendency AYUSH had by notification dated 1.7.2024 had omitted rule 170 of the 1945 rules. However, thereafter subsequently this court by order dated 27.8.24 stayed the notification dated 1st July. Learned Amicus said the rule is still in force and various compliances have been made in the said rule. By various orders, the prayers of the WP have been achieved and do not survive for further consideration. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed. Liberty is allowed to the parties to approach the High Court if they have any problems with the omission of rule 170. Consequently, the interim order dated 27.8.24 stands vacated.\u201d<\/p>\n
Pertinently, on February 24, the Supreme Court <\/a>had reviewed the compliance status of Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Pondicherry, and Punjab. The Court had taken a strong stance against Jharkhand\u2019s claim that no manufacturers in the state had applied for permission under Rule 170, directing the state to clarify whether any advertisements violating Rule 170(2) were being published. The Court emphasized that it was the state’s duty to ensure compliance and ordered an affidavit to be filed.On February 10, the Supreme Court <\/a>had pulled up multiple states for failing to implement its orders regarding the regulation of misleading advertisements related to allopathic and alternative medicines. The Court had directed the Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir to appear via video conferencing on March 7 to explain the non-compliance.On January 15, the Supreme Court<\/a> had issued strong directions to ensure compliance by states and Union Territories in addressing misleading claims and advertisements while warning of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for non-compliance. The Court had also closed<\/a> contempt proceedings initiated against the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Dr. R V Asokan, for his press interview containing remarks against the Supreme Court during the pendency of IMA’s plea against Patanjali Ayurved with respect to misleading advertisements.<\/p>\n In August 2024, the Bench led by Justice Hima Kohli had raised <\/a>concerns over the minuscule font size of an apology published by Dr. R. V. Asokan, President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), in connection with a contempt notice issued against him. The notice was related to the remarks he made in a press interview about the Apex Court while the IMA’s plea against Patanjali Ayurved was still pending.<\/p>\n On August 13, 2024, the Supreme Court had discharged<\/a> the Contempt Notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case. While closing the contempt proceedings against the duo, the Court had said that it is accepting the unconditional apology tendered by them. The Court had also warned them not to violate Court’s orders in future. <\/p>\n On July 9,2024, the Court had said<\/a> that its earlier order<\/a> containing directions for self-declaration to be submitted by the advertisement industry should not adversely suffer on account of its directions. The Court had also appointed <\/a>Advocate Shadan Farasat as an amicus for the limited purpose of collating all the data presented by states and presenting them before the Court. The Bench had also requested the Centre to convene a meeting with stakeholders and senior officials of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to resolve issues and difficulties faced by advertisers.<\/p>\n Earlier, on May 14, the Court had refused<\/a> to accept the unconditional apology of the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Dr. R. V. Asokan, for his press interview containing remarks against the Supreme Court during the pendency of IMA’s plea against Patanjali Ayurved with respect to misleading advertisements. Earlier, the Court had come down heavily<\/a> on the President of IMA. The Court had said that all intention is shown by Dr. Asokan’s conduct and had also inquired why no public apology has been made yet. The Bench had also reserved<\/a> order in the Contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna in the case. The Court had also called for<\/a> comradery between Allopathy and Ayurved.<\/p>\n On May 7, the Bench had issued<\/a> notice to the present President of the IMA, impleaded him as a party to the plea filed by IMA against Patanjali Ayurved, and directed him to file an Affidavit. <\/p>\n