With the writ petition now disposed of, the court emphasised that any party dissatisfied with the omission of Rule 170 could pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.
Published Aug 13, 2025 | 12:14 AM ⚊ Updated Aug 13, 2025 | 12:14 AM
Supreme Court (iStock)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court has disposed of the Indian Medical Association’s petition challenging misleading AYUSH drug ads, vacating its earlier stay on Rule 170, which required prior approval for such advertisements. Rule 170 now stands omitted.
The Supreme Court has disposed of a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) challenging misleading claims in advertisements of traditional medicine, and vacated its earlier stay that had kept in force a stricter pre-approval requirement for such ads.
A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna observed that the reliefs sought in the writ petition had already been addressed through earlier court orders, including directions issued on 26 March, 2025, to curb misleading medical advertisements.
“The prayers sought for have been achieved in as much as the reliefs have been granted by the court. We find that no object and purpose would be served in considering the petition any further. Hence the writ petition stands disposed of… Consequently the interim order dated 27th August 2024 stands vacated,” the court said, while granting liberty to all parties to seek relief if they have grievances regarding the omission of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
As per the Live law, Rule 170, introduced to curb exaggerated claims in advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs, mandated prior approval from state licensing authorities before such ads could be published.
On 1 July, 2024, the Ministry of AYUSH notified the deletion of Rule 170 through the Drugs (Fourth Amendment) Rules. However, on 27 August, 2024, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta stayed the notification, holding that the omission “flies in the face” of its earlier 7 May, 2024, order directing adherence to the rule.
During Monday’s hearing, Amicus Curiae Shadan Farasat argued that states had continued to implement Rule 170 even after the stay, saying it brought Ayurveda in line with allopathy. Justice Nagarathna questioned the logic of prohibiting advertisements while manufacture was allowed, remarking, “Once you allow manufacture, the advertisement is a natural business practice.”
Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for an intervenor, countered that while regular drugs undergo rigorous testing and approvals, Ayurvedic medicines are not subject to the same scrutiny. “They will say this will cure diabetes etc… There are millions of people who are illiterate and go for it. Look at the misuse,” he cautioned.
“Dear fellow citizens, Rule 170, which was inserted in December 2018, now stands omitted following the Supreme Court’s order yesterday. This means there is no longer any requirement for prior approval from State Licensing Authorities for AYUSH drug advertisements. I have put in all my efforts to avoid such a scenario… Take care!” said Dr. K.V. Babu, doctor and RTI activist on X.
Dear Fellow Citizens,
Now,Rule 170,which was inserted in December 2018 is omitted after the SC order yesterday.
That means ,no need of ‘prior approval’ of the State Licensing Authorities to Ayush Drug Ads
I have put in all my efforts to avoid such a scenario…
Take care ! pic.twitter.com/JfEbRtJQbU
— Dr Babu K V (@drbabukv) August 11, 2025
The litigation began with the IMA’s petition against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., alleging that its advertisements disparaged modern medicine. The proceedings expanded to address misleading ads in the wider sector, leading to contempt action against Patanjali founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. The contempt matter was closed earlier this year after the promoters issued multiple apologies.
The matter also touched upon the enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act).
On March 26, 2025, the court directed all states and union territories to implement the Act in “letter and spirit” by June 2025, set up grievance redressal mechanisms, appoint gazetted officers, sensitise police, and publicise complaint channels. It also tasked the National Legal Services Authority with running awareness campaigns and asked the Union government to develop a dashboard to track action against misleading advertisements.
With the writ petition now disposed of, the court emphasised that any party dissatisfied with the omission of Rule 170 could pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
