Supreme Court closes case on misleading medical ads, lifts AYUSH ad rule stay

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has closed proceedings in a case concerning misleading advertisements for traditional medicine and lifted an earlier stay that had required prior State approval for such ads.

The matter began with a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurveda over advertisements that disparaged modern medicine and made unsubstantiated health claims. The Court at one point imposed a temporary ban on such ads and initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali’s promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, before closing them following repeated apologies.

During the case, attention shifted to a broader regulatory question after the Ministry of AYUSH, in July 2024, removed Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. This rule had required Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicine advertisements to be pre-approved by State licensing authorities to prevent exaggerated claims.

A Supreme Court bench had temporarily stayed the deletion in August 2024, keeping the approval requirement in place. However, on Monday, Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan vacated that order.

Justice Nagarathna said the Court could not reinstate a rule once it had been lawfully omitted by the Centre, observing, “The judiciary does not have the power to legislate or revive an omission once it has been passed.”

Advocates opposing the deletion had argued that misleading claims could harm patients, with one pointing out: “There are large number of people who are gullible… in Ayurveda you can say this is the cure of a disease, people will be lured.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the removal, saying,“There is already a statutory mechanism in place… let us not doubt the intelligence of the common man.” He added that banning ads while allowing the manufacture of AYUSH products would be “an unfair trade practice”.

The Court said all initial reliefs sought in the IMA petition had been met and disposed of the case, allowing parties to approach High Courts if they wished to challenge the omission of Rule 170.