SC to examine MIB affidavit on SDC on October 15

New Delhi: The affidavit submitted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which proposes changes to the mandate on self-declaration certificates for advertisers, will be reviewed in court on October 15, 2024, stated a Supreme Court order.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday was hearing the Patanjali misleading ads case. 

During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj mentioned that several suggestions had been received. 

However, the Supreme Court noted that the affidavit was not yet on record. 

“A copy should be provided to all counsels. The affidavit must be placed on record. The matter will be taken up on October 15.”

The affidavit prepared by the MIB requests the Supreme Court that advertising agencies be exempted and that programmatic ads, online ads and user-generated content be excluded from the self-declaration certificate (SDC) framework.

The affidavit, submitted by Senthil Rajan, Joint Secretary at the MIB, on August 23, 2024, proposed implementing a unified SDC across all media platforms to simplify compliance.

The MIB suggested that advertising agencies should not be required or held accountable for uploading the SDC, as multiple advertising or media agencies may be involved in providing services.

In its affidavit, the MIB outlined several key recommendations, including:

1. Consolidation of portals: The ministry suggested merging the two existing portals for SDC into “a single, user-friendly platform.”

2. Unified SDC across all media: A single SDC could be made applicable to all media platforms, “reducing compliance burdens for the industry.”

3. Exemptions for certain entities: Ad agencies, print media, ASCI members, and startups “could be exempt from the SDC requirement.” 

4. Limited scope for SDC: The mandate could be restricted to advertisements for products and services from the food and health sectors, addressing the primary concern of misleading health claims.

5. Trial period: The period until the final verdict in the case could be treated as a trial phase, allowing for adjustments and refinements based on practical experience.

In addition, the MIB proposed that the term 'advertiser' should exclude 'user-generated content' and that online advertisements be exempt from the SDC mandate, aiming to address challenges in tracking and regulating online content. 

In another development during the court session, Amicus has also submitted that MCA's affidavit mentions there is no requirement to renew MoU with ASCI after the promulgation of CCPA. Thus, hinting that “little action has been taken” so far.

The Supreme Court has asked the CCPA to continue receiving complaints from consumers but no other third party against misleading ads of health and medicinal products, as mentioned by LiveLaw.

As per the court order, steps shall be taken to enable Amicus appointed by the court to access the e-filing portal. A compliance report will be filed, it stated.

The Supreme Court once again reprimanded Indian Medical Association (IMA) President R V Asokan over the publication of an apology in newspapers, during the hearing of the Patanjali misleading ads case.

The Supreme Court said the Indian Medical Association president Asokan's unconditional apology published in a newspaper over his "damaging" statements in an interview with PTI was illegible and the font minuscule.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta directed senior advocate P S Patwalia, appearing for Asokan, to file physical copies of 20 editions of The Hindu newspaper in which his apology has been published within one week.

"We will not budge until we see advertisements in physical form, show us the actual size.The excerpt of the apology filed before us is illegible in as much as the font is miniscule. Counsel for IMA president is directed to file physical copies of 20 publications of The Hindu where the publication of apology has been done within one week," the bench said.

On July 9, Asokan told the apex court that his unconditional apology to the apex court over his "damaging" statements in an interview with PTI, where he had answered queries about Patanjali Ayurved Ltd's misleading advertisements case, had been published in various publications.

During the hearing on May 14, the bench had posed some tough questions to Asokan over his "damaging" statements against the court in an interview with PTI and said, "You cannot sit on a couch giving an interview to the press and lampooning the court." The court had then made it clear that it would not accept his affidavit tendering an apology at that stage.

Expressing displeasure over Asokan's comments a day before the top court was slated to hear the matter, it had sought his response on an application filed by Patanjali Ayurved, which had urged the court to take judicial notice of the statements made by him.

In an interaction with PTI editors on April 29 for its program '@4 Parliament Street,' the IMA president had said it was "unfortunate" that the Supreme Court criticised the association and also some of the practices of private doctors.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the Central government's decision to eliminate Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which was originally designed to curb misleading advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicines.

This issue came to the forefront when a 2023 letter, advising a pause on the enforcement of Rule 170, was brought to the Supreme Court's attention in April. The matter emerged during hearings on a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved, alleging a defamatory campaign against modern medicine. 

Previously, the Court had criticised authorities for suspending the enforcement of Rule 170 and not applying it against Patanjali Ayurved's misleading advertisements. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj informed the Court that the letter halting the rule's enforcement had been withdrawn. However, the Court expressed displeasure over the subsequent decision by the Centre to entirely remove the rule.

Justice Hima Kohli sharply rebuked the government's move, stating, "We will quash your notification right now. No affidavit. You are violating our order. We are going to quash your notification. Nataraj, don't look at the amicus. We are sorry. This cannot happen here." With these remarks, Justice Kohli proceeded to halt the omission of Rule 170.