The Supreme Court has dismissed the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) petition against Patanjali Ayurveda for allegedly issuing deceptive advertisements on traditional medicines, observing that advertising is a “natural business practice” when the production of such products is permitted.

Justice BV Nagarathna, while pronouncing the order, remarked, “Once you allow manufacturing, advertising of the product follows as part of trade practice.” The court also scrapped its earlier directive that had imposed tougher scrutiny and prior approvals for such ads.

Government’s Stand

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that India already has a robust legal framework to curb misleading medical claims. He stressed that additional controls, like Rule 170—mandating prior approval for Ayurveda and traditional medicine advertisements—were unnecessary. “There is a statutory mechanism already in place… let us not underestimate the wisdom of the common citizen,” Mehta said.

Concerns Raised

Opposing the relaxation, Advocate Pranav Sachdeva cautioned the bench about the risks of false claims targeting vulnerable groups. He pointed out that many people could be misled into believing exaggerated assurances of cures. Amicus Curiae Shadan Farasat also flagged that since the apex court’s interim stay on AYUSH’s decision to drop Rule 170 in August 2024, several states had already been implementing the rule in practice.

Impact on Patanjali

The judgment also closed contempt proceedings against Patanjali’s promoters Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna after they issued repeated apologies for earlier misleading ads. With the closure, Patanjali can continue its operations without facing additional legal hurdles.

What the Order Means

While Rule 170 was designed to keep promotional claims in check, its removal signals a shift towards giving traditional medicine advertising the same treatment as allopathy. Critics, however, fear this could dilute consumer safeguards.

Concluding the matter, the bench said the reliefs initially sought had already been met and therefore no further deliberation was needed. The court nonetheless underlined that consumer interests must remain protected and that vigilance is key to ensuring fair advertising practices.