Supreme Court's Stern Warning to Patanjali Ayurved over Misleading Advertisement

Introduction

An advertisement becomes false or misleading when false or misleading statements or information related to the product are used in advertising that changes reality and influences consumer buying behaviour. Misleading advertising is any published claim that gives a consumer an incorrect understanding of the product or service presented in a unique environment. Misleading Advertising includes:-

• Exaggerating and overstating, or
• expressing unrealistic attributes of the product, or
• use of professional concepts for more effect, or
• fake license, or
• false warranties, or
• use of cinematic tricks and misleading images, or
• Discounts and gifts.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides a comprehensive definition of misleading advertisements, encompassing various aspects that could deceive consumers. According to this section, a misleading advertisement is one that:

1. Falsely describes a product or service.
2. Provides a false guarantee about the product or service, misleading consumers about its nature, substance, quality, or quantity.
3. Deliberately conceals important information that consumers need to make informed decisions.

This definition reflects the intent of the legislation to protect consumers from deceptive marketing practices and ensure transparency in advertising.

Section 89 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, outlines the penalties for manufacturers or service providers who engage in false or misleading advertising that is prejudicial to consumer interests. The penalties include:

1. Imprisonment for a term of up to two years.
2. A fine of up to ten lakh rupees for the first offence.
3. For subsequent offences, imprisonment for a term of up to five years and a fine of up to fifty lakh rupees.

This provision underscores the seriousness with which the law views misleading advertising and aims to deter companies from engaging in such practices.

In which entities' hands does the authority lie to oversee and govern advertising within their specific jurisdictions?

Top of Form

• Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority
• Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
• Securities and Exchange Board of India
• Reserve Bank of India • Medical Council of India
• Food Safety and Standards Authority

Patanjali vs. IMA (Indian Medical Association)

The Supreme Court served a contempt notice to Ramdev-owned Patanjali Ayurved and its managing director Acharya Balakrishna for issuing misleading advertisements about health cures for an alleged violation of a previous order.

In the petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Justices Hima Kholi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah initially considered a blanket ban on all product advertisements. However, they later opted to restrict the advertising of products related to diseases and ailments under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954, taking into account Patanjali's extensive product range and its potential impact on business interests. The petition highlighted concerns about the systematic dissemination of misinformation disparaging allopathy and modern medicine, with specific reference to a Patanjali advertisement from 2022.

It was argued that Patanjali's unverified claims violate existing laws such as the Drugs & Other Magic Remedies Act, of 1954, and the Consumer Protection Act, of 2019. And also highlights controversial statements made by Ramdev, associated with Patanjali, including derogatory remarks about allopathy and unfounded claims about COVID-19 vaccines and oxygen cylinders during the second wave of the pandemic.

Judgement

The court reprimanded Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading claims and advertisements against modern systems of medicine and issued a stern warning to impose? 1 crore in case such promotions continued. Further, it also barred Patanjali from promoting products claimed to cure diseases such as heart ailments and asthma. The court prohibited Patanjali and its officials from making any public statements against any medical system in any form of media.

Conclusion

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has delivered a resounding blow against misleading advertisements, particularly those peddling false health cures. The case, pitting the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved, owned by Ramdev, brought to light a troubling trend of misinformation in advertising. This judgment sets a powerful precedent in the fight against deceptive advertising, signalling a new era of accountability and consumer protection. As the guardians of truth and integrity in advertising, the Supreme Court's decisive action sends a clear message: misleading advertisements will not be tolerated, and those who engage in such practices will face severe consequences.