Introduction

Misleading advertisements or false advertisements have a likelihood to lure consumers into purchasing their brand which comprehensibly amounts to an unfair trade practice under the consumers protection Act and thus is overly objectionable. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is the sole law which confers to the consumers the right to seek speedy redressal for grievances against false and misleading advertisements via compensation for loss arising out of such advertisements, owing to the fact that misleading advertisements promotes unfair trade practice and the primary object of the Act is to ensure consumers their:

1. Right to information
2. Right to choose in an insistent price rate
3. Right to safety
4. Right to seek redressal and to be heard at an appropriate forum

Legal framework that prohibits false and misleading advertisements

Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements Act): This Act prohibits advertisements on promotion and usage of drugs for fulfilling objectives like: improving and maintaining sexual pleasures capacity in humans, curating or correcting disorders relating to menstruation, impotency, sterility, etc. The Act further impose punishment of imprisonment for 6 months or with fine or both.

The Cable Television Network Regulation Act and Rules: This Act specifically sets out that no advertisement shall be transmitted or re-transmitted by any person via cable service if it is inconsistent with the stipulated advertising code. The stipulated code lays down that the advertised product or service shall not be deficient in any way and shall not carry credentials which cause people to hypothesize that the ingredients are supernatural or capable of causing miracles.

Food safety and standards Act, 2006: The new law lays down the provisions concerning false and misleading advertisements related to food by way of falsely representing or deceiving consumers that foods possess certain quality or standard or efficiency. The penalty stipulated for contravening the provisions of the Act, therefore for publishing misleading advertisements extends to Rs.10 lakhs.

Drugs and cosmetics Act,1940: According to the provisions of this Act no drug may claim and devolve the idea of curing and preventing diseases mentioned in schedule J and also that it may procure miscarriage in women. 

Ailments specified in schedule J are such:

1. AIDS
2. Baldness
3. Diabetes
4. Obesity
5. Spondylitis
6. Genetic disorders
7. Increasing height in children as well as adults
8. Cataract
9. Stones in gall bladder
10. Myocardial infarction
11. Varicose vein
12. Improvement in vision, etc

In the contemporaneous case of Indian Medical Association v. Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. The Supreme court conspicuously reprimanded yoga guru Ramdev baba and the managing director of Patanjali Ayurveda Acharya Balkrishna after they published a misleading advertisement concerning numerous different diseases claiming that Patanjali successfully aims to cure all such diseases.

The petition was filed in the year 2022 wherein the instances mentioned by the petitioner explicitly represented several criticisms on allopathy made by Baba Ramdev such as “allopathy is a stupid and bankrupt science”; also alleging allopathy being cause of covid 19 deaths in addition to his published advertisement titled as “misconceptions spread by allopathy”.

The first hearing of the petition was held on 21st November, 2023 wherein the Supreme Court warned and threatened Patanjali with imposition of hefty fine of Rs.1 crore over each and every product of Patanjali brand which claims to “completely cure diseases”. The court also declared that in regard to advertisements and branding of products there shall be no violation of laws, moreover, the court stated that statements that casually claim efficiency of a medicine in any form will not be broadcasted in media.

On January 15 2024, allegations were received by the Chief Justice of India and Justice Amanullah via letter regarding publication of perpetual misleading advertisements as a consequence on 27th February the Supreme Court bench issued notice of contempt to Patanjali Ayurveda and its managing director Acharya Balakrishna for defying the earlier orders of the Supreme Court.

On march 19, it was brought to the notice of the court that contempt notice was not responded to by the Patanjali Ayurveda, in consonance to which an order was passed demanding personal appearance of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna.

On March 21, with respect to the violation committed, an apology was addressed to the Supreme Court by Balakrishna.

On April 2nd the aforementioned apology was highly condemned and banished by the Supreme court. 

Last opportunity was conferred by the Supreme court to Patanjali Ayurveda demanding legit explanation with an affidavit on ground that the erstwhile apology was insufficient and mere “lip service”.

On April 9th an apology was put forward before the Supreme Court by Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna.

On April 10th the Supreme Court still unconvinced with the bestowed apology and considering the violation willful, repudiated the apology and held that mandatory consequences shall be suffered by Patanjali Ayurveda for being defiant for violating the orders of the court and also the fact that the apology was made to the media first was considered an absolute stunt of publicity by the court. 
Further action was taken on 16th April and next hearing is awaited on 23rd April.

Conclusion

Advertisements form the basis of consumer culture and is a prominent practice for promotion and development of brands since it attempts to persuade consumers to enhance their purchasing skills by choosing respective products and therefore its tremendously significant that these ads are fair and non-manipulative.

- Zapan Chawla is BA.LLB. Hons. Final year student at Amity university Lucknow.