IMA President Is "Feeling Sorry" About Interview Containing Remarks Against Court: Supreme Court Informed, Court Issues Notice To Him
The Supreme Court today came down heavily on 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.
The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah issued 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 before the next date of hearing on 14 May.
On the last occasion, the Court had pulled up the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and had said, "While the Petitioner is pointing fingers at Patanjali, those other four fingers are pointing at you, because members of your Association have been busy endorsing medicines to their patients, left, right and centre."
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Patanjali then submitted that an IA has been filed by requesting the Court to take judicial notice of the interview of the President of the IMA. "This is a very serious issue. They are trying to divert the course of justice", he added. He also said that the Court had merely asked the IMA a few questions.
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appearing for the IMA was asked by Justice Amanullah about its President's interview, "How did that interview come to be?"
"It is not very fortunate", Patwalia responded.
"Not very fortunate? You are very mild with your words", Justice Amanullah said.
"It is out of context. He was called by PTI on a host of other issues, it was a leading question and he fell into it", Patwalia said.
"You were confronted with this on the last week. We thought you would have done something about it", Justice Kohli said.
"We will do it. We did not want to preempt anything", Patwalia said.
"What were you preempting? Your president goes to the press about a matter that is subjudice!", Justice Kohli asked.
"He was actually praising the judgment, for the most part. There are black sheep amongst us also. They asked him that question, he fell into it", Patwalia said and both the Judges responded with an emphatic "No".
"This innocent reply is not persuading us", Justice Kohli said.
"I will take corrective action. Give me an opportunity", Patwalia said.
"We gave you an opportunity", Justice Amanullah said.
"This Court doesn't expect pats on its back for anything it is doing. This Court is also used to taking a lot of brickbats. It has broad enough shoulders to handle it all. But that does not mean that you will.... unacceptable", Justice Kohli remarked.
"He is feeling sorry, he realises that he should have kept his mouth shut. That is exactly what I told him", Patwalia said.
"We are not concerned about what you told him. We are concerned about what was pointed out by the other side on the last date and your inaction. You can't even justify that", Justice Kohli.
Patwalia then said that it was based on his advice that he did not take any steps. "Allow me to make some redemption", he added.
The Court then proceeded to pass an order. With respect to the Centre's notice to States and UTs not to implement Rule 170 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the Court noted in the order that the Centre's stand that the said Rule has been challenged before various High Courts and that pursuant to interim orders by Courts, the Rule has been recommended for omission. The Court directed the Ministry of Ayush to expedite the process. The Court recorded a statement of the ASG that the letter dated 29 August 2023 by the Ministry of Ayush not to implement Rule 170 will be withdrawn.
In its order, the Court referred to the Central Consumer Protection Authority under the Consumer Protection Act and directed that the said authority be put to use "vigorously". The Court noted in the order that endorsers in advertisements viz. public figures, influencers should act with responsibility when endorsing any product. The Court said that the Union Ministries should set up specific procedures to encourage consumers to lodge complaints and take them to a logical conclusion.
The Court directed, as a tide-over measure, that a self-declaration be uploaded by advertisers on the lines of Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, Rule 7 on the Broadcast Seva Portal of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, before airing the advertisements on electronic media. For print media, the Ministry has been directed to create a new portal. The advertiser should then inform the broadcaster about the submission of such a declaration.
The Court directed that FSSAI should act proactively without waiting for complaints. The Court also directed that the Patanjali products whose license has been suspended should be taken out of the market and the old advertisements should also be taken down.
Cause Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022]