Patanjali case: Supreme Court widens ambit to put FMCGs under scanner for misleading ads

Talking about the functioning of FMCGs in the country, the apex court said that multiple companies function the same way as Patanjali and State Licencing Authorities across India will have to be impleaded in this regard.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to put under its scanner a large number of FMCG companies and Indian Medical Association, saying they have been taking the consumers, including of babies, children and senior citizens, for a ride by misleading advertisements and prescribing expensive medicines for extraneous reasons respectively.

Taking up contempt proceedings against Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali's MD Acharya Balkrishna, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also turned the table against the petitioner India Medical Association over "unethical activities of prescribing overpriced medicines for consideration" by their members.

"The petitioner IMA needs to put its house in order," the bench said.

IMA has filed the plea against Baba Ramdev for advertisements of medicine of curing various diseases and criticising allopathy.

During the hearing, the court also posed a number of queries to Union government and asked it to file an affidavit explaining the actions taken by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for misleading advertisements by FMCG companies since 2018.

Earlier also, the court also expressed concern over the advertisements issued by the FMCGs.

"We must clarify that we are not here to gun for a particular company or authority. We want to know how agencies are acting...Our endeavour is to act in the public interest against FMCGs (Fast-moving consumer goods) and drug companies that have been misleading the public. We feel it is part of the process of rule of law," the bench said.

At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh and other counsel appearing for proposed contemnors Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna submitted they have issued an advertisement 67 newspapers across the country tendering unqualified apology in the matter.

The bench, which asked them if this apology was in equal size of the "misleading advertisements", allowed them to file the original newspapers.

The court also asked the Union government represented by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj as to why it has issued a letter to all states licencing authority on August 29, 2023 asking them not to take any action under Rule 170 of the Rules under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

"Is it not arbitrary and colourable exercise," the bench asked the government's counsel.

The court asked the government to submit an explanation regarding a recommendation made by the Ayurvedic Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUBTAB) for the omission of Rule.

"On one hand, your minister says on the floor of the House that you will be taking effective steps against misleading ads. On the other hand, you are amending the regulation in this regard...Can you issue a rule in violation of a statute? Will it not amount to abetting something wrong," the bench asked Nataraj.

Rule 170 was meant to prohibit advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs without the ad being cleared by the licensing authority of the state where the manufacturer of the medicine is located or where the corporate office is located, in case the manufacturing is happening in more than one state.

Turning towards senior advocate P S Patwalia, appearing for IMA, the bench asked him, "What are you doing with your members who are prescribing medicines for consideration? Why should we not turn beam at you? We are not looking at the respondents alone. We can't let public to be taken for a ride, you can't shrug off your responsibility." The court sought to know the actions taken on complaints against the doctors, practitioners of allopathy.

The court also made National Medical Commission as a party to the proceedings for proper assistance on a request by Patwalia.

In its order, the bench said, "We make it clear that the proceedings are not just limited to the respondent (Patanjali) but all similarly situated FMCGs and drug companies issuing advertisements and taking the public for a ride, in particular babies, school going children, women and senior citizens.”

The court asked the Union government, IMA and states licencing authorities to file their response on May 7.