SC summons Andhra, Delhi, J&K chief secretaries over misleading ads issue

The court noted that as far as the states of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir are concerned, "there is hardly any implementation of the orders passed" by the court

Supreme Court, SC
(Photo: Shutterstock)
Bhavini Mishra New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Feb 10 2025 | 8:25 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the chief secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir to appear virtually on March 7 to explain why they have not complied with the court’s orders to prevent misleading medicinal advertisements.
 
The court noted that as far as the states of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir are concerned, "there is hardly any implementation of the orders passed" by the court.
 
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali’s advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases. Patanjali, yoga guru Ramdev, and his associate Balkrishna have already tendered an apology in the case.
 
On Monday, the apex court also asked the chief secretaries of other states to explain why they have not filed their affidavits complying with its orders regarding the enforcement of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
 
"We direct the states of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, and Jammu & Kashmir to file further affidavits, including affidavits dealing with the enforcement of Rule 170. We grant time till the end of this month to these states to file responses... We direct the chief secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir to remain present through video conferencing on that day to explain why these states are non-compliant," the court said.
 
The court remarked that though it does not usually summon chief secretaries, it will do so in this case to send a "sufficient signal" for them to take the matter seriously.
 
The court had, on May 7, 2024, directed all state and union territory governments to file affidavits of their licensing authorities regarding action taken since 2018 concerning misleading advertisements that violate the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
 
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme CourtAdvertisment

First Published: Feb 10 2025 | 8:25 PM IST

Next Story