Patanjali Ayurved is an Indian multinational company founded by Ramdev and Balkrishan in 2006. The company manufactures cosmetics, ayurvedic medicines, food products, and personal care products. With 94% of the company shares, Balkrishan is the biggest shareholder, while Ramdev represents the company and makes strategic decisions.

Patanjali produces over 150 lines of products in various categories. It is the fastest-growing FMCG company in India and is also expanding its market into neighboring countries like Nepal, where a manufacturing unit operates under the brand name Nepal Gramudhyog.

More than 1,000 stores in India sell only Patanjali products, offering lower prices compared to other retailers' stores. However, over the years, Patanjali has made several false claims about their products' efficacy and used banned materials in their products. They advertised about 14 products, claiming to cure some incurable diseases, on several social media platforms.

The Supreme Court ordered Patanjali to file an affidavit stating that these 14 banned products are not advertised on any social media platform. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a case against Patanjali Ayurved for selling and advertising medications that claim to cure incurable diseases and for undermining the COVID-19 vaccination drive. On April 15, the Uttarakhand licensing wing banned all 14 Patanjali products under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and the corresponding rules.

Not satisfied with the claim, the Supreme Court on July 9 asked Patanjali to file an affidavit confirming that they have stopped selling and advertising all banned products. The court gave the company two weeks to file the affidavit. Weeks before this, the court also asked the company to apologize for its claims to cure diabetes and COVID-19 symptoms.

Patanjali stated that they have issued a notice to all their franchise stores to stop advertising and selling these 14 banned products. Still, the court wanted assurance that the orders were being implemented, and posts from Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) were removed. The court ordered the IMA to ensure compliance.

IMA President RV Asokan's statement about the court proceedings was later exempted by the court, but the IMA issued an apology on its official website as a pop-up and circulated it to the Press Trust of India. 

On May 14, the court also made statements about the proceedings involving the IMA, saying, "You do exactly the same thing Patanjali did. You are not a layman; don’t you know the consequences of such things? You can’t sit on your couch lamenting the order of the court."

“What kind of example are you setting for the 3.5 lakh doctors who are part of the association?”

This case is a clear example of the significant scope of this issue, which is expanding and affecting other industries. Consequently, the Supreme Court appointed lawyer Shadan Farasat to assist the court.

Due to the court order to stop advertising, many other industries intervened in the proceedings, stating that this rule would significantly impact industries. Based on this, the court ordered the Ministry of Broadcasting to hold a meeting with stakeholders, and the Ministry of Affairs should also be included to ensure the entire industry is not affected by this one case.

In April, the court issued an order requiring a self-declaration that the advertisement doesn’t violate the law before it is broadcast.

"The ads shall be run in channels only thereafter," the SC said.  These declarations have to be uploaded on the government’s seva portal.

On May 14, the court issued a contempt notice against Balkrishna and Ramdev for false advertising under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and its rules.

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, controls the advertisement of drugs in certain cases, prohibits advertisements for certain purposes of remedies alleged to possess magical qualities, and provides for matters connected therewith. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and applies also to persons domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories.

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, outlines strict regulations on advertising certain drugs and remedies. Section 3 prohibits advertisements for drugs related to the procurement of miscarriage or prevention of conception in women, the enhancement of sexual pleasure, correction of menstrual disorders, and the treatment or prevention of diseases specified in the Act's schedule. Additionally, the Act bans misleading advertisements that create false impressions or make unsubstantiated claims about drugs. It also prohibits any advertisements for magical remedies claiming efficacy for treating specified diseases. Furthermore, importing or exporting documents containing such advertisements is forbidden. These provisions aim to protect consumers from deceptive marketing practices and ensure that only verified medical information is disseminated, thus maintaining public health and safety.

Another case study like this is the action against a self-styled baba who advertises offering "magic treatment" to patients. The division bench of Acting Chief Justice AK Sikri and Justice RS Endlaw sought responses from the governments and asked petitioner AK Jain to make city-based Nirmal Baba a party in the case. The petitioner alleged that Nirmal Baba (Nirmaljit Singh Nirula) had been advertising in different electronic and print media, claiming to offer "magical treatment" while presenting himself as a "representative of god." The petitioner sought a ban on all the advertisements by the Baba, saying that such publicity was contrary to the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. "The common man is being misled by the self-styled Nirmal Baba under the belief that the problems of a particular person will be solved with his blessings...the baba is spending lakhs of rupees on his advertisements and has earned more than Rs.200 crores within a few years in Delhi," the petition said.

Conclusion

The case against Patanjali Ayurved highlights the significant challenges and regulatory scrutiny faced by companies making unsubstantiated health claims. Despite its rapid growth and extensive market reach, Patanjali's advertising practices have led to serious legal consequences and public health concerns. The Supreme Court's firm stance and the Indian Medical Association's involvement underscore the critical need for compliance with advertising laws to protect consumers from misleading information. This situation not only impacts Patanjali but also sends a clear message to the broader industry about the importance of ethical marketing practices. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome will likely influence future regulatory measures and industry standards, emphasizing the balance between commercial success and consumer safety.

(Input from various media sources)

(Rehash/Yash Kamble/MSM)