Supreme Court on Misleading Ads Case: Celebrities, Influencers Equally Responsible

New Delhi: Taking a firm stand on the products that celebrities and influencers endorse, the Supreme Court came, on Tuesday, came down heavily on them. 

Clamping down on misleading advertisements, the apex court said celebrities and public figures needed to act responsibly while endorsing a consumer product.

The apex court directed that before an advertisement is permitted to be issued, a self-declaration be obtained from advertisers on the line of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.

Rule 7 of the 1994 law stipulates an advertisement code that says advertisements carried should be designed to conform with the laws of the country.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also directed the Union ministries concerned to apprise it of misleading advertisements and the action taken or proposed to be taken against them by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

"Endorsements by celebrities, influencers and public figures go a long way in promoting products and it is imperative for them to act with responsibility while endorsing any product in the course of advertisement and taking responsibility for the same," the bench observed.

The apex court was hearing the case related to misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. It is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the Indian Medical Association alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali and yoga guru Ramdev against the COVID vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine.

The bench has been critical of misleading advertisements about Patanjali products that have now been prohibited from being still available on various Internet channels. 

SC Pulls Up IMA Chief

Earlier in the day, the SC pulled up Indian Medical Association (IMA) President Dr RV Asokan over his remarks on the observation made by the apex court on the conduct of doctors in the Patanjali case. While speaking to a news agency, Asokan said that it was unfortunate that the Supreme Court criticised the practice of IMA and the private doctors. 

Expressing displeasure over Asokan's comments a day before the top court was slated to hear the matter, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah sought his response on an application filed by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali, told the bench that they have filed an application urging the court to take judicial notice of the "wanton and unwarranted comments" made by the IMA president.

"This is a very serious issue. They are trying to divert the course of justice… Your lordships asked one or two queries and see how they are reacting as if nobody can ask anything," Rohatgi said.

Rohatgi said at the last hearing, he had handed over to the court the transcript of the interview which was published in newspapers.

"You can't say you don't know," the bench told the IMA's counsel.

Later during the hearing, when senior advocate P S Patwalia appeared for the IMA, the bench asked him about the comments made by Asokan.

When Patwalia said it was "rather not very fortunate", the bench curtly told him, "You are very mild with your words".

"Your president gave an interview on the eve of the hearing. Why on the eve of hearing?" the bench asked.

Patwalia said he was called for an interview by the Press Trust of India (PTI) on a host of other issues.

"Then what happened, according to me, it was a leading question and he fell into it," he said.

"A doctor falling?" Justice Amanullah said testily.

In an interaction with PTI editors on April 29 for its programme '@4 Parliament Street', the IMA president had said it was "unfortunate" that the Supreme Court criticised the association and also some of the practices of private doctors.

Asokan was replying to a query about the Supreme Court's observations during a hearing on April 23 when it had said while it was pointing one finger at Patanjali, the remaining four fingers were pointed towards IMA. The "vague and generalised statements", Asokan added, have demoralised private doctors.

"We sincerely believe they need to look at what was the material before them. They perhaps did not consider that this was not the issue that was before them in the court.

"You can say anything but still a majority of doctors are conscientious... practising according to ethics and principles. It does not behove the Supreme Court to take a broadside against the medical profession of the country which, after all, sacrificed so many lives for the Covid war," he had said. (with PTI inputs)