The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark ruling, rejecting the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) plea against Patanjali Ayurveda. The court upheld the government’s decision to rescind Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which previously required companies to obtain advance clearance from state licensing authorities before advertising AYUSH products. AYUSH products are derived from Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy.
The issue began in 2022 when the IMA filed a petition against Patanjali Ayurveda, owned by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for releasing advertisements that disparaged modern medicine and made false claims about treating chronic diseases such as hypertension, asthma, and diabetes. The IMA argued that these claims were misleading and hazardous to public health. The Supreme Court initially issued notices to the Union Health Ministry, Ministry of AYUSH, and Patanjali.
However, in July 2024, the Ministry of AYUSH withdrew Rule 170, eliminating the need for legal pre-approval of advertisements for Ayurvedic medications. The Ministry argued that this was part of a broader regulatory overhaul. Despite earlier judicial remarks emphasizing strict compliance with advertising norms, the Supreme Court found that the relief sought by the IMA had already been granted to a large extent.
The final hearing saw the judges questioning the validity of introducing a rule that no longer existed under the law. The court ultimately ruled that it could not restore a rule that had been abolished by the central government. While the verdict provides temporary relief to Patanjali, it also serves as a warning to all AYUSH product firms to comply with advertising standards. Customers are advised to be cautious and critically evaluate the claims made by these products, as the lack of regulation in this area can be misleading.
The ruling has significant implications for the industry, as it highlights the need for stricter regulations and oversight. The court’s decision emphasizes that companies must ensure that their advertising claims are substantiated and not misleading. The verdict also underscores the importance of consumer awareness and critical evaluation of the claims made by AYUSH product manufacturers. Ultimately, the ruling is a reminder that while traditional medicine can be beneficial, it must be marketed responsibly and with transparency.