SC stays Centre's decision to omit rule prohibiting misleading advertisements of Ayurvedic, Unani drugs

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta said that Rule 170 of the 1945 Rules shall remain in the statute book till further orders.

Rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules was meant to prohibit misleading advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs. The Ministry of Ayush on July 1 by a notification, omitted the Rule 170 of 1945 rules.

The top court said that this notification of omission flies in the face of this court's earlier order and instead of withdrawing the letter of August 29, 2023, the notification dated July 1 2024 has been released to omit Rule 170 of 1945 rules.

The lawyer representing the ministry sought time to clarify the omission. The court granted time to the ministry for clarification but said that till then the notification of July 1, 2024, omitting Rule 170 stands stayed or in other words remains in the statute books.

The top court had earlier asked the Union of India to explain the letter dated August 29, 2023, issued by the Under Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India addressed to all States/UT Licensing Authorities and Drug Controllers of AYUSH, informing them that the Ayurvedic Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB), in its meeting held on May 25, 2023, has recommended proceeding with the final Notification omitting Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and its related provisions.

The top court was considering the issue of misleading health claims made by the advertisements by some companies and the Centre's decision to omit Rule 170 from the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945. The issue came to the knowledge of the court when it was dealing with a petition filed by Indian Medical Associations against Patanjali for misleading advertisements.

In the meantime the top court pulled up Indian Medical Association (IMA) president R V Asokan during the hearing as it noted that the apology published by him in newspapers was too small. The top court said that excerpt of the apology filed before it is illegible in as much as the font is miniscule and directed him to file physical copies of 20 publications of the newspaper where the apology has been published. (ANI)