The Supreme Court of India issued a stern directive on Monday, summoning the chief secretaries of Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir to address the persistent issue of misleading advertisements for Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed frustration over the insufficient enforcement of the court’s previous orders regarding such advertisements.
During the proceedings, the bench emphasized the need for stricter compliance and directed the chief secretaries of the implicated states to appear via video-conferencing to explain their lack of action. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, serving as amicus curiae, highlighted that most states had merely accepted apologies from violators and had failed to enforce substantial penalties.
The Supreme Court criticized the states for not implementing Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which strictly prohibits misleading advertisements related to Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani medicines. “As rightly submitted by the amicus curiae, the issue of illegal advertisements will be substantially taken care of, if all the states start implementing Rule 170 in its true letter and spirit,” the bench stated.
Additionally, the court mandated that Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, and Jammu and Kashmir submit detailed affidavits explaining their actions regarding the enforcement of this rule. The states have been given until the end of the month to comply, with further proceedings scheduled for March 7.
This action follows a stay by the Supreme Court on a Ministry of Ayush notification last August, which had controversially omitted Rule 170—a decision the court described as directly contravening its May 7, 2024 order. In that order, the court had established that advertisers must obtain a self-declaration similar to the requirements under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, before releasing any advertisements.
The central government defended its position by stating that a final gazette notification on the matter would take time and that its interim directive was meant to prevent confusion and unnecessary litigation among state and UT licensing authorities.
