Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Indian Medical Association and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022
Decided On : 07-05-2024
[INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION] - [JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS] - [DMR ACT 1954, DC ACT 1940, C.P. ACT 1986, CTN ACT 1995, FSSA 2006] - [The court addressed the issue of misleading advertisements in the health sector, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court highlighted the responsibilities of advertisers and endorsers, mandating a self-declaration process before advertisements are published, to ensure compliance with legal standards and protect consumer rights.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an interlocutory application concerning misleading advertisements related to health products, where the President of the Indian Medical Association made statements in an interview that were deemed offensive. The court was asked to take judicial notice of these statements and address the ongoing issue of deceptive advertisements in violation of previous court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a significant lack of accountability among advertisers and regulatory bodies regarding misleading advertisements. It emphasized the need for a robust mechanism to ensure compliance with existing laws and protect consumer rights.
Issues: The primary issues included the enforcement of the DMR Act, 1954, the DC Act, 1940, and the C.P. Act, 1986, in relation to misleading advertisements, the responsibilities of various ministries, and the adequacy of current regulatory frameworks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that existing laws and guidelines must be enforced vigorously to protect consumers from misleading advertisements. It established that advertisers and endorsers bear responsibility for the content they promote and mandated a self-declaration process to ensure compliance with advertising standards.
Final Decision: The court directed the implementation of a self-declaration requirement for advertisers before any advertisement is published, reinforcing the need for accountability and adherence to legal standards in advertising practices.
ORDER :
Interlocutory Application No. 110011 of 2024
1. This application has been moved by the respondent No. 5 praying inter-alia that judicial notice be taken of the statements made by the President, Indian Medical Association1 [For short ‘IMA’]-Petitioner No. 1 of the offending statements made by him in his interview published in various publications on 29th April, 2024, on the eve of this matter being listed in this Court on 30th April, 2024.
2. It is pertinent to note that a reference was made by learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 to 7 to the aforesaid interview on the last date of hearing as well and a copy of the interview printed in the press was duly furnished to Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior counsel who had sought time to respond. Despite that, no response has been filed so far.
3. Issue notice.
4. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior counsel states that his briefing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the President, IMA. He shall be impleaded as a co-respondent in the present proceedings. Amended Memo of parties shall be filed by the counsel for the petitioner no. 1-IMA before the next date of hearing. Reply be filed well before the next date of hearing, i.e. 14th May, 2024.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 645/2022:
1. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents no. 5 to 7/proposed contemnors that pursuant to the orders passed on the last date of hearing, i.e. 30th April, 2024, the relevant pages of each newspaper in original, where a public apology has been published by the respondents no. 5 to 7, tendering an unqualified apology for violating the orders of this Court as passed on 23rd April, 2024, by continuing to issue deceptive advertisements and for breaching the undertakings given to this Court, has been filed. It is submitted that the Registry has accepted one set of the said documents. The second set of documents, that are photocopies of the originals of the already filed newspapers, are proposed to be filed in the course of the day.
2. The photo copies shall be filed at the earliest. The Registry shall take the same on record.
3. Service has been effected on the National Medical Commission2 [For short ‘the NMC’] that is represented by a counsel. However, no steps have been taken by NMC to file an affidavit in the light of the observations made by this Court in Para 9 of the order passed on 23rd April, 2024. NMC shall file an affidavit before the next date of hearing, i.e. 14th May, 2024.
4. On the last date of hearing, keeping in mind the number of misleading advertisements that are being published/displayed with little/nil accountability on the part of the manufacturers, promoters and advertisers, it was deemed appropriate to implead the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology as parties in the present proceedings to examine the steps taken by them to prevent abuse of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 19543 [In short DMR Act 1954] and the Rules, the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 19404 [In short DC Act 1940] and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.5 [In short C.P. Act 1986] In light of the stand taken by Union of India that implementation of the DMR Act, 1954 lies in the hands of the State Governments/UT Licensing Authorities, all of them were also directed to be impleaded in the present proceedings.
5. Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General who is already appearing for the Ministry of Ayush and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India submits that besides an earlier affidavit filed by the Ministry of AYUSH, an additional affidavit has been filed. Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting have also filed separate affidavits. He submits that the Department of Food and Public Distribution (under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology do not have a ma
AI
Advertisers and endorsers are legally responsible for ensuring that their advertisements comply with established laws and guidelines, and a self-declaration process is necessary to uphold consumer ri....
The court emphasized accountability for misleading advertisements affecting public health and directed ministries to examine their enforcement actions.
Claims in advertisements concerning health benefits must be scientifically substantiated, failing which they risk being deemed misleading under advertising standards.
The main legal point established is the validity of prosecution initiated by the Drugs Inspector under the Special Act and the need for regulation of online advertisements of drugs and medicinal tabl....
Point of Law : There is a blatant violation of the provisions of Rule 1945 and Act 1954. Rule 170 prohibits the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Sidda or Unani drugs without permission. Moreover Rule 170(....
Any descriptions on the pre-packaged commodity would come under the definition of ‘label’, and the said expression is not included in Rule 31(2).
The absence of importer information on a carbonated drink label does not amount to misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, especially where a valid trade agreement between In....
Drugs Inspectors under Section 8 of 1954 Act lack statutory power to file direct complaints; must forward to police for FIR as per Supreme Court directions; existing complaints quashed for procedural....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
