The Supreme Court of India delved into a marathon hearing on Tuesday concerning allegations of misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved, particularly focusing on Coronil, a product touted as a remedy for COVID-19. The court’s scrutiny extended to the centre’s actions, questioning the omission of Rule 170 from the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, which regulates ads for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicinal preparations.
Rule 170, introduced in 2018 to monitor claims made by companies like Patanjali, required clearances from state licensing authorities before airing advertisements. However, last year, the AYUSH Ministry recommended its removal based on technical board recommendations, instructing authorities not to take action under this rule.
The court, noting discrepancies in the centre’s stance and concerns over potential revenue-driven decisions, demanded explanations. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned the withdrawal of Rule 170, emphasizing the need for stringent oversight of advertisements for healthcare products.
The court also criticized the Indian Medical Association (IMA), the original petitioner, questioning their efforts to counter misleading ads for allopathic medicines. It highlighted concerns about the prescription of expensive and unnecessary medications and urged the IMA to address ethical lapses within its ranks.
Moreover, recent global concerns over product safety, including cancer-causing compounds found in spice brands and excess sugar in baby food products, prompted the court to broaden its inquiry. It sought answers from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and state licensing authorities regarding regulatory measures and public safety.
Sources By Agencies
