 "Supreme Court, SC, Top Court")
Social media influencers and celebrities now find themselves in the thick of the Supreme Court’s lens as the court on Tuesday said that they’ll share equal responsibility for endorsing products or services in misleading advertisements.
The top court also told the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution to file a fresh affidavit on action taken by Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) against false or misleading ads, particularly in the food and health sector. FSSAI has also been ordered to file a similar affidavit.
“We are of the opinion that the advertisers or the advertising agencies or endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and misleading advertisements. Endorsements by public figures, influencers, celebrities etc go a long way in promoting a product and it is imperative for them to act with responsibility when endorsing any product in the course of advertisements,” said the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while taking note of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines which call for influencers to be transparent about paid endorsements.
The court said celebrities and influencers should ‘not abuse the trust placed in them by the public’.
“They have to take responsibility for advertisements as contemplated in guideline 8 (ads that target or use children) and guideline 12 (duties of manufacturers, service providers and ad agency) to ensure that the trust of the consumer is not abused or exploited due to sheer lack of knowledge or experience. Guideline 13 requires due responsibility to be taken for advertisements and requires a person who endorses a product to have adequate information or experience with the specific food product to be endorsed, and it must be ensured that it is not deceptive,” the top court said.
The court said broadcasters need to file the self-declaration on the Broadcast Seva portal run by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
More From This Section
It further ordered the Central government to establish a new portal for filing such self-declaration forms for advertisements on print media. This portal is to be set up within four weeks, the court said. The next hearing in the matter is on May 14.
What were you doing?
The Supreme Court also came down on the Indian Medical Association (IMA) for comments made by its president RV Asokan during an interview.
“You say (the) other side (Patanjali Ayurved) is misleading, running your medicine down, but what were you doing?” the top court asked IMA.
Asokan had said SC’s observations during Patanjali’s misleading advertisements case against allopathy practitioners was “unfortunate and very vague and general statement which has demoralised the doctors”. The Supreme Court had said before this interview that IMA needs to ‘put its house in order’.
The court said it expected the IMA to maintain decorum, especially given the sensitivity of the ongoing legal proceedings. “See the manner in which the matter was proceeding. The views of the court equally apply to you,” the bench said.
Acharya Balkrishna, the managing director of Patanjali Ayurved, lodged a complaint against Asokan’s interview, alleging interference with the court’s proceedings and seeking action against the IMA president.
Meanwhile, Patanjali was directed to take down misleading advertisements that are running online. It also said to remove products, which were prohibited, from stores.
ALSO READ: D&I in Indian advertising
Centre withdraws letter
The Centre told the Supreme Court that it will forthwith withdraw the letter sent by Ministry of Ayush to all State and UT Licensing Authorities asking them not to take any action against ads pertaining to Ayurvedic and Ayush products under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945.
This comes after the Supreme Court chided the government for issuing a letter to State and UT licensing authorities asking them not to take action against ads related to Ayurvedic and Ayush products under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945.
The bench referred to the letter of August 29, 2023 issued by the Ministry of Ayush to all State/ UT Licensing Authorities and Drug Controllers of AYUSH regarding omission of Rule 170 (and related provisions) of the 1945 Rules.
Rule 170 prohibits advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs without licensing authorities’ approval.
“How can you say that you do not implement a law till it is a good law? And that too the government will say that! It is glaring. How do we shut our eyes that till date it was neither withdrawn nor taken to its logical conclusion... Is it permissible under the constitution as it holds today,” the Bench said on Tuesday.
The court is hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali’s advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases.
