Supreme Court Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a notification issued by the Ministry of Ayush, which omitted rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 that prohibits misleading advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs.

Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balakrishna today got some relief in a misleading ads case related to Patanjali products after the Supreme Court closed the contempt case against them.

The Supreme Court directed Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, founded by yoga guru Ramdev, to file an affidavit stating whether advertisements of its 14 products, whose manufacturing licences were initially suspended but later restored, have been withdrawn.

The Supreme Court today refused dismissed a petition - filed by the BJP - that challenged the Calcutta High Court order restarining the party to publish "derogatory" advertisements targetting Bengal's ruling Trinamool Congress.

Taking a firm stand on the issue of misleading advertisements, the Supreme Court has said that celebrities and social media influencers are equally liable if the commercial for the product or service featuring them is found to be deceptive.

Hearing the Patanjali Ayurved misleading ads case, the Supreme Court has asked the government why it omitted Rule 170 from the Drugs and Magical Remedies Act, or DMR, which prohibits advertising of medicines as products with "magical" abilities.

Patanjali Ads Case: A furious Supreme Court on Wednesday ripped into the Uttarakhand government's drug licencing authority, demanding to know why and how it failed to act against misleading ads floated by Baba Ramdev's Patanjali Ayurved.

The Supreme Court today refused to accept an "unconditional apology" of Patanjali Ayurved's co-founder Ramdev for not abiding by the undertaking given to it in the misleading advertisements case.

After being pulled up by the Supreme Court, yoga guru Ramdev and his company Patanjali Ayurved's managing director Acharya Balkrishna have tendered an unconditional apology to the court.

Yoga guru Ramdev appeared in person to face the Supreme Court today over Patanjali Ayurved's "misleading advertisements".

The Supreme Court was told on Thursday that lawyers or legal practitioners cannot solicit or advertise their work unlike doctors, who can publish advertisements, and hence, their services cannot be brought under the Consumer Protection Act.

Yoga teacher Ramdev-led Patanjali Ayurved on Wednesday said it was not making any "false advertisements or propaganda" regarding its products, and said it would not object if the Supreme Court were to impose a fine or "even give us a death sentence" if found making misleading claims.

The Supreme Court Tuesday cautioned Patanjali Ayurved, a company co-founded by yoga guru Ramdev and dealing in herbal products, against making "false" and "misleading" claims in advertisements about its medicines as cure of several diseases.

The ad comes at a time when the Supreme Court is deliberating on petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage.

The case, Gonzalez v. Google, will be argued Tuesday and centers on whether internet companies are liable for the content their algorithms recommend tousers.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a notification issued by the Ministry of Ayush, which omitted rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 that prohibits misleading advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs.

Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balakrishna today got some relief in a misleading ads case related to Patanjali products after the Supreme Court closed the contempt case against them.

The Supreme Court directed Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, founded by yoga guru Ramdev, to file an affidavit stating whether advertisements of its 14 products, whose manufacturing licences were initially suspended but later restored, have been withdrawn.

The Supreme Court today refused dismissed a petition - filed by the BJP - that challenged the Calcutta High Court order restarining the party to publish "derogatory" advertisements targetting Bengal's ruling Trinamool Congress.

Taking a firm stand on the issue of misleading advertisements, the Supreme Court has said that celebrities and social media influencers are equally liable if the commercial for the product or service featuring them is found to be deceptive.

Hearing the Patanjali Ayurved misleading ads case, the Supreme Court has asked the government why it omitted Rule 170 from the Drugs and Magical Remedies Act, or DMR, which prohibits advertising of medicines as products with "magical" abilities.

Patanjali Ads Case: A furious Supreme Court on Wednesday ripped into the Uttarakhand government's drug licencing authority, demanding to know why and how it failed to act against misleading ads floated by Baba Ramdev's Patanjali Ayurved.

The Supreme Court today refused to accept an "unconditional apology" of Patanjali Ayurved's co-founder Ramdev for not abiding by the undertaking given to it in the misleading advertisements case.

After being pulled up by the Supreme Court, yoga guru Ramdev and his company Patanjali Ayurved's managing director Acharya Balkrishna have tendered an unconditional apology to the court.

Yoga guru Ramdev appeared in person to face the Supreme Court today over Patanjali Ayurved's "misleading advertisements".

The Supreme Court was told on Thursday that lawyers or legal practitioners cannot solicit or advertise their work unlike doctors, who can publish advertisements, and hence, their services cannot be brought under the Consumer Protection Act.

Yoga teacher Ramdev-led Patanjali Ayurved on Wednesday said it was not making any "false advertisements or propaganda" regarding its products, and said it would not object if the Supreme Court were to impose a fine or "even give us a death sentence" if found making misleading claims.

The Supreme Court Tuesday cautioned Patanjali Ayurved, a company co-founded by yoga guru Ramdev and dealing in herbal products, against making "false" and "misleading" claims in advertisements about its medicines as cure of several diseases.

The ad comes at a time when the Supreme Court is deliberating on petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage.

The case, Gonzalez v. Google, will be argued Tuesday and centers on whether internet companies are liable for the content their algorithms recommend tousers.