Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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