Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali from Advertising Coronil as COVID-19 Cure, Cites “Potential Public Health Risks

25 December 2024 9:07 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, directing the company to cease all advertisements and public statements that claim its Coronil tablet as a cure for COVID-19. The order emphasizes that such representations mislead the public and violate statutory approvals. The judgment, pronounced by Justice [Name], underscores the potential public health risks posed by such false claims during a global pandemic.

The suit was filed under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and other plaintiffs, challenging the claims made by Patanjali Ayurved Limited regarding the efficacy of its Coronil tablet as a cure for COVID-19. The plaintiffs argued that these claims, widely publicized through various media, were misleading and lacked scientific validation. The defendants, including prominent figures like Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, maintained that their statements were based on scientific studies and independent testimonials.

The court scrutinized the medical evidence and approvals related to the Coronil tablet. It was noted that the statutory approvals granted by the Ministry of AYUSH and other competent authorities only permitted the use of Coronil as an immunity booster and supportive measure for COVID-19, not as a cure. The court remarked, “Anecdotal evidence of some persons can never be a substitute for statutory approval, certification, or licensing of the said Tablet as a treatment, medicine, or cure for COVID-19”.

The court found that the actions of the contesting defendants amounted to public nuisance. “The representations made by the contesting defendants in relation to the medicinal efficacy of their products, through advertisements and by holding press conferences, have the tendency to mislead the public-at-large about the purpose and efficacy of the said Tablet”. This was particularly concerning given the vulnerable state of the public during the pandemic.

The judgment discussed the principles governing the grant of interim relief, particularly in cases where public health and safety are at stake. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., which allows for interim relief when withholding it would result in irreparable harm or injury that could not be rectified later. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience and potential for irreparable injury justified the interim injunction.

Justice [Name] noted, “If the clear terms of the aforesaid approvals, certifications, and licenses were not in themselves sufficient to ring-fence the permissible use of the said Tablet, a specific application made by the contesting defendants seeking to update the permissible use of the said Tablet was not approved by the Ministry of AYUSH”.

The Delhi High Court’s interim injunction against Patanjali Ayurved Limited sends a strong message about the legal and ethical responsibilities of companies in advertising medicinal products. By upholding the statutory guidelines and emphasizing the importance of accurate public communication, the judgment aims to protect public health and prevent the spread of misinformation. This decision is expected to influence future cases involving false medical claims and ensure stricter compliance with health regulations.

Date of Decision: , July 29, 2024
 

Latest Legal News