Context:
In February of this year, the Supreme Court of India issued a contempt notice against Patanjali Ayurved for releasing deceptive advertisements that directly violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954 and its accompanying rules. This action came despite the company assuring the Court in November of the previous year that it would not engage in such practices.
Relevance:
GS-2
- Government Policies and Interventions
- Transparency and Accountability
Mains Question:
Commercial interest should not be allowed to override public health and safety. Analyse in the context of recent rise in deceptive advertisements by brands. (10 Marks, 150 Words).
About The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954:
- The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954 serves as a legislative framework aimed at regulating the advertisement of drugs and prohibiting claims of magical properties in remedies.
- It encompasses various advertising mediums such as written, oral, and visual forms. Within the Act, the term “drug” pertains to medicines intended for human or animal use, substances for diagnosing or treating diseases, and items affecting bodily functions.
- Additionally, the Act defines “magic remedy” beyond consumable articles to include talismans, mantras, and charms purported to possess miraculous healing or influencing powers.
- The legislation imposes strict regulations on drug-related advertisements, prohibiting any that create false impressions, make unsubstantiated claims, or are otherwise deceptive.
- Violations of these provisions can lead to penalties, including imprisonment or fines upon conviction.
- The definition of “advertisement” under the Act extends to encompass all forms of notices, labels, wrappers, and oral announcements.
- The Magic Remedies Act applies to a broad spectrum of individuals and entities engaged in advertisement publication, including manufacturers, distributors, and advertisers. Both individuals and companies can be held accountable for breaches of the Act.
- In cases of company violations, individuals responsible for business operations may be deemed culpable unless they can demonstrate ignorance or establish due diligence in preventing the offense.
- Furthermore, directors, managers, or officers of the company may also face liability if they consented to or neglected the offense.
- Punishments for violating the Act include imprisonment, fines, or both. A first-time conviction may result in up to six months of imprisonment, fines, or both.
- Subsequent convictions may lead to imprisonment of up to one year, fines, or both. The Act does not specify any limits on the fines that may be imposed on individuals or organizations.
More on the Current Case:
- On Tuesday, the apex court intensified its stance by threatening Patanjali’s co-founder Baba Ramdev with perjury proceedings, alongside the contempt charges.
- The two-member Bench once again criticized the government strongly, this time for overlooking Patanjali’s promotion of its products as a cure-all during the COVID-19 pandemic, which flagrantly violated the Act.
- Although the Court has requested the government to submit an affidavit to clarify that it was not complicit, the reality remains that the government took minimal action to inform the public that Coronil was not a “cure” for COVID-19, as asserted by the company in June 2020, but rather a “supporting measure in COVID-19”.
- In February 2021, the presence of Harsh Vardhan, then Union Health Minister, alongside Union Minister Nitin Gadkari at a press conference organized by Patanjali to endorse Coronil lent significant credibility to the company’s claims.
- Encouraged by the lack of punitive measures from either the courts or the government regarding the false assertion that Coronil could treat COVID-19, the company embarked on an advertising campaign in 2022 asserting that its products could cure various non-communicable diseases and ailments.
- These advertisements also disparaged evidence-based medicine, particularly allopathy. On November 21, 2023, the Court cautioned the company against advertising permanent cures and warned of imposing a penalty of ₹1 crore on each product for which such claims were made.
- However, in blatant defiance, the company conducted a press conference the following day to defend its products.
- During December of the previous year and January 2024, disregarding the Court’s authority, the company once again released newspaper advertisements, prompting the Court to issue a contempt notice in February.
- It seems improbable that the company could persist in such behavior without at least implicit support from the central government and the government of Uttarakhand, where the company is headquartered.
Guidelines to Curb Unfair Advertisements in India:
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) recently released guidelines to curb false or deceptive advertising practices. These guidelines delineate criteria for determining non-misleading and valid advertisements.
- An advertisement is deemed non-misleading if it presents a truthful and honest portrayal of goods without exaggerating their accuracy, scientific validity, or practical usefulness.
- Even in cases of unintentional errors, an advertisement may be considered valid if the advertiser promptly informs consumers of any deficiencies.
- Regarding surrogate advertisements, which involve promoting goods indirectly under the guise of other products, the guidelines strictly prohibit such practices. For instance, advertising tobacco disguised as pan masala is expressly forbidden.
- There should be no attempt to circumvent legal prohibitions or restrictions on advertising by portraying it as an advertisement for different goods or services.
- The guidelines also address advertisements targeting children, prohibiting those that condone risky behavior or exploit children’s vulnerability.
- Advertisements are recognized as influential in shaping children’s purchasing habits, potentially steering them towards unhealthy products or fostering negative perceptions of healthy options.
- Furthermore, the guidelines introduce the necessity of disclaimers in advertisements to clarify claims, qualifications, or resolve ambiguities.
- Advertisers are prohibited from concealing material information that could render an advertisement misleading or obscure its commercial purpose.
- Manufacturers, service providers, and advertising agencies are assigned responsibilities under these guidelines. They are instructed not to make claims or comparisons based on objectively verifiable facts.
- Advertisements should be designed to foster consumer trust and should not exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge or experience.
Conclusion:
Overall, these guidelines aim to promote transparency and integrity in advertising while safeguarding consumers from deceptive practices and unhealthy influences. In matters concerning health and medicine, government favoritism can pose significant dangers and risks. Prioritizing commercial interests over public health and safety can be extremely hazardous.
