Patanjali had pledged to withdraw the ads, yet the Supreme Court sharply rebuked the company, questioning why no action was taken against the company. Furthermore, the court has imposed a total prohibition on Patanjali Ayurved from publishing any advertisements related to diseases or conditions. The Court has barred Patanjali Ayurved from advertising its products associated with diseases/disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.
During the morning session, Justice Amanullah strongly criticized Patanjali for another misleading advertisement. He expressed firmness in passing stringent orders, stating Patanjali had the audacity to publish such ads after prior court orders.
“You (Patanjali) had the courage and guts to come up with this advertisement after the order of this Court! And then you come up with this advertisement. Permanent relief, what do you mean by permanent relief? Is it a cure?” the SC observed during the hearing.
During the proceedings, Justice Amanullah emphasized the intolerability of misleading advertisements. He court also said that the government did nothing to stop the ads and “is sitting with its eye closed.”
The Supreme Court condemned the widespread deception caused by misleading advertisements, stressing the urgent need for government intervention. This response followed a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved’s deceptive ads. In November of the previous year, the Court had cautioned Patanjali against false claims in its advertisements promoting medicines as cures for various diseases.
The bench, led by former Chief Justice NV Ramana, expressed respect for Swami Ramdev Baba’s contributions to yoga but criticized the disparaging tone of Patanjali’s ads towards allopathic doctors. It mandated the immediate cessation of all false and misleading Patanjali advertisements, warning of fines up to Rs 1 crore for each product making false cure claims.
The IMA accused Ramdev of spreading misinformation on social media, resulting in legal action under IPC Sections 188, 269, and 504. The Court scheduled the next hearing for March 15th, amidst ongoing concerns about misleading advertising and its impact on public health perceptions.