SC asks if Patanjali, Ramdev's apology was as big as its misleading ads; raps Centre for inaction

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the Union government for its inaction against Patanjali Ayurved over misleading The top court emphasised the importance of consumer welfare and truthfulness in advertising during the hearing of the IMA's case against Patanjali, stressing the public's right to accurate information regarding potentially misleading A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah pulled up the Central government for its failure to invoke Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, against Patanjali Ayurved for broadcasting and publishing misleading Notbaly, Rule 170, was introduced in 2018 to regulate inappropriate Ramdev and Balakrishna told the Supreme Court that they have issued an unqualified apology in newspapers for the lapses on their part in the misleading Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the defendants, informed the bench that a public apology had been published in 67 papers across the nation yesterday, costing "tens of lakhs." He said that additional However, the bench questioned whether the apology issued by them in newspapers yesterday was as prominent as their The bench went on to acknowledge the unqualified apologies issued by Patanjali, Ramdev, and Balkrishna in newspapers yesterday but noted that they hadn't been presented in court. SC expands misleading ads case to include FMCG firms Expanding the scope of its hearing in the Patanjali Ayurved case, the Supreme Court also took a stern view of misleading It said the issue was not limited to Patanjali but extended to all Fast-Moving Consumer Goods firms that have been issuing "misleading "We must clarify that we are not here to gun for a particular party or a particular agency or a particular authority. It also sought an explanation from the Centre over an August 2023 letter issued by the Ministry of Ayush to the licencing authorities of all states and Union Territories and drug controllers of AYUSH, asking them not to initiate any action under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.