MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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