The Supreme Court has questioned state governments for failing to act against misleading medical advertisements, despite clear legal provisions under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. It stressed the need for a grievance redress mechanism, including a dedicated helpline for consumers to report false medical claims.
The case originated from a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Ramdev, Patanjali co-founder Balakrishna, and Patanjali Ayurveda, accusing them of falsely promoting herbal products as cures for diabetes and respiratory diseases. The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed concern over the lack of enforcement, despite laws banning misleading claims about medical cures.
A key issue is the weak implementation of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which prohibits advertising Ayurvedic, Unani, and Siddha medicines as guaranteed cures. Last year, the Ministry of Ayush tried to remove this rule, but the Supreme Court stayed the move, citing public health concerns.
The court also warned of contempt proceedings against states that fail to act against violators. Amicus curiae Shadan Farasat submitted a report highlighting that many states and Union Territories have been lax in enforcing the law.
This case raises an important question: Who protects consumers from misleading medical claims? While regulations exist, enforcement is weak. With misleading health claims easily spreading online, stricter oversight is crucial. The Supreme Court’s intervention could push authorities to finally act, ensuring public health takes priority over unchecked marketing. The Financial Express