Summary
In continuing misleading-advertising proceedings, the Court required advertiser self-declarations before publication or broadcast and directed online submission and proof to publishers. It held that an administrative letter could not suspend an enforceable statutory rule and required immediate withdrawal of the AYUSH letter concerning Rule 170. Regulatory authorities were directed to report enforcement action, and endorsers’ due-diligence responsibilities were emphasised. These are the directions made in this dated interim order, not a final disposal of the petition.
Issues
- What safeguards were required against misleading advertisements and endorsements.
- Whether administrative instructions could suspend an enforceable statutory rule.
- What enforcement information and compliance steps regulatory authorities had to provide.
Provisions considered
- Articles 32 and 141, Constitution of IndiaThe Court invoked protection of the right to health and informed consumer choice to prescribe self-declarations, stating that the directions were law declared under Article 141. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Rule 170, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945An administrative instruction could not put the rule on hold while it remained legally enforceable; immediate withdrawal of the AYUSH letter was required. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Rule 7, Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994The Advertising Code supplied the model for advertiser self-declarations before advertisements were printed, aired or displayed. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Guidelines 8, 12 and 13, Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements, 2022Responsibilities concerning children, consumer trust and due diligence apply to advertisers, agencies and endorsers, including public figures and influencers. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Sections 50–54, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006The Ministry was directed to report food-regulatory complaints and enforcement, including misleading advertising and suo motu action since 2018. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Held
- The AYUSH Ministry’s administrative letter directing non-enforcement could not suspend Rule 170 while legally operative. The Ministry was to withdraw the letter immediately and expedite the proposed rulemaking steps; this order did not itself complete deletion of the rule. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Advertisers, advertising agencies and endorsers share responsibility for misleading claims. Endorsement requires adequate information or experience and due diligence; consumer trust cannot be exploited through ignorance or inexperience, including in child-focused advertisements. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- The Court directed self-declarations before advertisements were printed, aired or displayed, modelled on the Advertising Code. Submission was to be through Broadcast Sewa; a dedicated press, print and internet portal was to be created within four weeks. Upon activation, advertisers must upload before issue and furnish proof to the relevant media entity. Advertisements without the required declaration were prohibited by this order. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- State and Union Territory licensing authorities were required to report action against misleading advertising since 2018. Additional affidavits were sought concerning Central Consumer Protection Authority enforcement and FSSAI complaints, penalties, independent action and future measures; forwarding complaints alone was inadequate consumer redress. (¶¶ 8, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26)
- In the separate application concerning the IMA President’s interview, notice was issued, impleadment directed and a reply required before 14 May 2024. This was a procedural direction rather than a final finding on the complained-of statements. (¶¶ 1 (IA), 2 (IA), 3 (IA), 4 (IA))
- The petition remained pending and was directed to be listed on 9 July 2024 at the top of the Board. The self-declaration requirements described here record this order’s historical directions. (¶ 27)
Result
Interim directions issued on self-declarations, regulatory affidavits and withdrawal of the AYUSH letter. Petition remained pending, listed for 9 July 2024.