On the SC’s radar

LOOKING at the larger picture, the Supreme Court has asserted that the issue of misleading advertisements is not confined to Patanjali Ayurved; it extends to all fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) firms which are ‘taking the public for a ride, in particular affecting the health of babies, schoolgoing children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the misrepresentation’. Taking a firm stand in public interest, the court has asked the Centre and state licensing authorities to ‘activate’ themselves to deal with the menace. Even as Patanjali has issued an unconditional public apology in newspapers over its controversial advertisements, the Bench has questioned the petitioner, the Indian Medical Association, about the allegedly unethical practices of some of its members, who prescribe highly expensive medicines for ‘valuable consideration’.

It is commendable that the apex court is keen to stem the systemic rot rather than preoccupy itself with Patanjali. All stakeholders now find themselves under judicial scrutiny. The Bench has sought an explanation from the Centre about a letter issued in August 2023 by the Ministry of Ayush. In the letter, the ministry had asked licensing authorities not to take action under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Ironically, this rule had been inserted in the provisions in 2018 to specifically ‘control inappropriate advertisements of ayurvedic, siddha and unani medicines’. No wonder the ministry’s U-turn last year had raised eyebrows, leading to apprehension that the government was reluctant to crack down on the offenders.

There should be zero tolerance to all kinds of misleading or inappropriate advertisements, no matter which system of medicine’s practitioners are at fault. The Central Government should lead the way by issuing advisories from time to time and ensuring strict implementation of the law. Any attempt to rake in the moolah at the expense of public health should elicit a swift and exemplary response.