State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge

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