Summons Can Be Issued to Dealers Post Deemed Assessment: Madras High Court Clarifies Scope Under TNVAT Act Delhi State Consumer Commission Dismisses DDA’s Appeal: "Sufficient Cause" Not Established for Delay in Filing Impartiality is Paramount' as It Voids Biased Arbitrator Appointment: MP High Court Enmity is a Double-Edged Weapon: High Court Acquits Jog Singh in 1986 Murder Case Criminal and Departmental Proceedings Can Proceed Simultaneously, Rules P&H High Court: 'Approach and Objective are Distinct and Different Court Cannot Legislate: High Court Upholds Employee Insurance Delay Rejection Acquittals Should Be Challenged Only with 'Compelling and Substantial Reasons': Rajasthan High Court Enquiry Commission’s Term May End, But Existence Can Be Revived by Government: P&H High Court Show Cause Notice Cannot Be Challenged Prematurely; Section 68 Proceedings Aim to Strengthen Co-operative Bank: Kerala High Court Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Businessman: A Case of Abuse of Legal Process Delhi High Court Upholds Creditor's Right to Execute 20-Year-Old Decree Despite Winding-Up Proceedings Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Framed as Harassment: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Over Workplace Allegations Trade Mark | Even Across Different Product Classes, the Well-Known LEGO Trademark Warrants Protection from Misleading Use: Madras High Court Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Required in Corrupt Practice Allegations: Kerala High Court Dismisses Election Petition on Excessive Campaign Expenditure Fees Should Be Proportionate to the Number of Locations Handed Over: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali from Advertising Coronil as COVID-19 Cure, Cites “Potential Public Health Risks

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
 

Similar News