The Supreme Court of India has closed the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) petition against Patanjali Ayurveda regarding misleading ads for its traditional medicine products. With this, the top court also cancelled its earlier order that had put stricter checks on advertisements.
While giving the verdict, Justice BV Nagarathna said that once the government allows a company to manufacture a product, advertising it becomes a natural part of business.
“Once you permit manufacture, then advertisement of that product will be a natural business practice,” she explained.
Government’s stand
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Union government, supported the removal of the strict advertising rule, known as Rule 170. He argued that India already has laws to deal with false and misleading medical claims, so an additional rule was unnecessary.
“There is already a statutory mechanism in place… let us not doubt the intelligence of the common man,” he said.
Rule 170 had earlier made it compulsory for companies producing Ayurvedic and traditional medicines to get pre-approval before publishing advertisements.
This rule was introduced to stop false medical claims and protect consumers.
Concerns raised
However, not everyone agreed with the decision. Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, who was representing an intervenor, warned that the removal of Rule 170 could allow misleading advertisements to flourish. He argued that many people trust Ayurveda deeply and could be easily influenced by false claims.
“There are a 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,” he cautioned.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, who served as ‘amicus curiae’ (a legal expert assisting the court), also pointed out that since the court’s earlier stay in August 2024, several states had already been implementing Rule 170.
He suggested that the situation had changed and deserved careful consideration.
Despite these warnings, the court decided to close the matter, saying that the relief sought in the petition had already been achieved.
The final order read: “It is not in dispute that the relief sought for has been achieved… Hence the writ petition stands disposed.”
Patanjali’s position
The Supreme Court also ended the contempt proceedings against Patanjali founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. Earlier this year, the duo had faced criticism for making misleading claims about Patanjali products in ads. After their repeated apologies in court, the judges decided not to take further action. This allows Patanjali to continue its operations without additional legal hurdles.