The Supreme Court today said that its earlier order containing directions for self-declaration to be submitted by the advertisement industry should not adversely suffer on account of its directions. The Court requested the Centre to convene a meeting with stakeholders and senior officials of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to resolve issues and difficulties faced by advertisers.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), wherein, by an Order dated February 27, 2024, Patanjali was restrained from advertising or branding some of the products manufactured and marketed by it that are meant to address the ailments/diseases/conditions mentioned under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 and the Rules.

The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered, "We are also of the opinion that the industry (advertisement industry) should not suffer in any manner. The focus of this Court has already been highlighted in previous orders and needs no repetition. The Ministry is directed to continue the churning of ideas and have further meetings in this direction and file an affidavit making its recommendations".

At the outset, the Court asked if the IMA had found that Patanjali had done due diligence to remove advertisements that were against the law. When Senior Advocate PS Patwalia answered in the negative, the Court said that the IMA ought to have done that exercise by today. The Court recorded in its order that Patanjali has filed an affidavit stating that it has stopped selling products which were suspended by the Drug Licensing Authority of Uttarakhand and that instructions have been issued to stop all advertisements of the said medicines. The Court directed Patanjali to file an affidavit stating what action have social media intermediaries taken to remove advertisements that have been withdrawn by Patanjali.

The Court appointed Advocate Shadan Farasat as an Amicus for the limited purpose of collating all the data presented by states and presenting them before the Court.

The IMA told the Court its President Dr. R. V. Asokan has filed an additional affidavit referring to his apology, which has been published on the official website of IMA and on PTI and other media houses. The Court marked the personal presence of Dr. RV Asokan and exempted him from personal appearance, for the time being.

The Court then took up intervention applications by the Advertising Agencies Association represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, Internet and Mobile Association of India represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, the Association of Radio Operators represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, Broadband India Forum represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and other similar applications. The Court appointed three Nodal Counsel to collate data relating to the intervention and interim relief applications in relation to its previous order relating to advertisements.

The Court recorded that the Union has already held meetings with some of the intervention applicants to resolve the issue expressed by them. The Court recorded in the order that the advertisement industry should not suffer on account of the orders passed by the Court.

The Court then adjourned the contempt case against Patanjali to August 6. The main case, including the intervention applications will be listed on July 30.

Pertinently, on May 14, the Court had refused to accept the unconditional apology of 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. Earlier, the Court had come down heavily on the President of IMA. The Court had said that all intention is shown by Dr. Asokan's conduct and had also inquired why no public apology has been made yet. The Bench had also reserved order in the Contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna in the case. The Court had also called for comradery between Allopathy and Ayurved.

On May 7, the Bench had 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. Earlier, 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."

In related news, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had issued a press release stating that in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 645/2022-Indian Medical Association & Anr. vs. . Union of India & Ors, requiring all advertisers and advertising agencies to furnish a 'Self-Declaration Certificate' before publishing or broadcasting any advertisement, the Ministry had introduced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal for TV and Radio Advertisements and on the Press Council of India's portal for Print and Digital/Internet Advertisements. This portal was activated on June 4, 2024.

Cause Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022]

Justice Hima KohliJustice Sandeep MehtaPatanjali Ayurved

Sukriti Mishra