Advertising a natural practice: Top court closes Patanjali misleading ads case

New Delhi,UPDATED: Aug 16, 2025 10:36 IST

The Supreme Court closed the Indian Medical Association's (IMA) petition against Patanjali Ayurveda over misleading claims in advertisements for traditional medicine, noting that advertising is a natural practice if manufacturing is permitted. In doing so, the top court set aside its earlier order that had imposed stricter checks and approval requirements.

"Once you permit manufacture, then advertisement of that product will be a natural business practice," said Justice BV Nagarathna while closing the case.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, argued that an existing legal framework already prohibits false medical claims, rendering Rule 170 unnecessary. "There is already a statutory mechanism in place...let us not doubt the intelligence of the common man," he said. Rule 170 had required pre-approval for traditional medicine advertisements.

During the proceedings, Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, representing an intervenor, urged maintaining the status quo of the Supreme Court's earlier stay against the Ministry of AYUSH's notification omitting Rule 170. Sachdeva warned about the dangers of misleading ads, noting, "There are large number of people who are gullible...In Ayurveda you can come up and say this is the cure of this disease, people will be lured."

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, serving as Amicus Curiae, noted that since the stay in August 2024, "a lot has happened the States have been implementing the rule." Despite this, the notification deleting Rule 170 indicated a shift towards aligning traditional medicines with allopathy practices.

The division’s decision to close contempt proceedings against Patanjali’s promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, following their repeated apologies, allowed the company to continue operations without further legal obstruction.

While Rule 170 was aimed at curbing exaggerated claims, its removal suggests a leaning towards less restrictive advertising practices. This change has sparked debates around the balance between consumer protection and business freedom.

In its final order, the top court noted that the relief sought had been achieved, and the case does not require further consideration. "It is not in dispute that the relief sought for has been achieved in as much as by various orders...Hence the writ petition stands disposed," the order stated.

The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between consumer protection and business practices, highlighting the need for vigilance in advertising standards.

- Ends

Tune In