SC Stays Govt's Decision To Omit Key Rule against Misleading AYUSH Ads

Anadi Tewari (Bar and Bench) 27 August 2024

Investor Interest

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Central government's decision to omit Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which was aimed to tackle misleading advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs (Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors).

A letter by the Central government issued in 2023 had earlier effectively put on hold the implementation of Rule 170.

In this letter, States and Union Territories were directed not to invoke this rule against misleading advertisements after an advisory board recommended its removal.

The letter was withdrawn this year, but the rule was omitted altogether as well by a notification issued by the Indian government.

A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta was not pleased with this development and made it clear today that the rule shall remain in the law books for the time being.

"In our opinion this notification of omission flies on the face of this court's order on May 7 ... Instead of withdrawing the letter of 29/8/2023, the notification dated 1/7/2024 has been released to omit Rule 170 of 1945 rules. Mr. Natarajan states that time will be given to clarify the omission. He is given time to clarify. Till then the notification of July 1, 2024 omitting Rule 170 stands stayed or in other words remains in the statute books," the Court ordered.

Rule 170 was added to the 1945 Rules in 2018. It prohibited the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs without approval by the licensing authority in the State or Union Territory where the drug was manufactured.

The aim of the rule was to tackle misleading advertisements.

The 2023 letter to pause the invocation of Rule 170 came to the attention of the Supreme Court in April this year.

The issue arose while the Court was hearing the case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against an alleged smear campaign launched by Patanjali Ayurved against modern medicine.

The Court had earlier criticised the authorities for halting the implementation of Rule 170 and not invoking it against Patanjali Ayurved for its misleading ads.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj informed the Court today that the letter has now been withdrawn. However, the Centre's decision to then omit the rule altogether did not sit well with the Court.

"You have withdrawn the letter but the rule stands omitted ... How can you take this decision of omitting this rule in the teeth of the court's order?" Justice Kohli asked the ASG.

"You cannot use a letter to put a rule on hold. The intention was to ensure that Rule 170 stays, but you have omitted ... Any manufacturer can go around and make any ad," Justice Mehta added.

ASG Nataraj assured that an affidavit would be filed to explain the government's move. However, the Bench opined that the rule must stay in force until such a clarification is made to the Court's satisfaction.

"We will quash your notification right now. No affidavit. You are violating our order. We are going to quash your notification. Mr Nataraj don't look at the amicus ... We are sorry. This cannot happen here," Justice Kohli remarked before proceeding to halt the omission of Rule 170.

The matter will be heard next in October.

Courtesy: Bar & Bench

Comments