Delhi High Court: A plaint was filed by AIIMS Rishikesh (plaintiff) seeking to restrain defendant 1 from distributing, transmitting, publishing, re-publishing or releasing in any manner to the public and a direction to the defendants to remove/take-down all active URLs and videos pertaining to the impugned statements made by defendant 1 or his associates, agents, employees, officers or partners relating to a drug manufactured, advertised and marketed by the concerned defendants under the name and style of “Divya Coronil”. Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., restrained from further making, publishing, re-publishing, distributing, transmitting, or releasing to the public, the impugned statements or any other similar statements or content relating to Divya Coronil, either through print, digital or electronic media or otherwise, in any manner whatsoever, either directly or through their employees, officers, partners, associates or agents, until final disposal of the present suit.
The Court directed the “defendants to delete and take-down from all websites on the internet and social-media platforms that are within their management and control all the impugned statements.”
Plaintiff 1 is an association of resident doctors of several prestigious medical institutions in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Odisha, Punjab and Telangana; and plaintiffs 2 to 13 are individual resident doctors and/or office bearers of certain other doctors associations who have filed the suit to raise issues of public nuisance and wrongful acts affecting the public at-large. Defendants 1 and 2 are individuals who are associated with and are in-charge and in control of the affairs of the entities arrayed as defendants 3 to 6 in various capacities. Defendants 7 to 9 are social-media platforms. Defendant 10 is John Doe. The case centers around the promotion and licensing of Divya Coronil Tablet, manufactured and marketed by Patanjali Ayurved Limited.
The petition was filed due to misleading advertisements and public statements by the defendants, particularly by prominent figures such as Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, claiming that Divya Coronil Tablet could cure COVID-19. These claims were made despite explicit statutory limitations on how the product could be marketed. The misleading promotions persisted even after the defendants had given assurances to the Supreme Court to refrain from such actions. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have falsely advertised the tablet as a cure for COVID-19, which is contrary to the statutory approvals granted by the Ministry of AYUSH and other licensing authorities. The tablet was approved only as an immunity booster and supportive measure for COVID-19, not as a cure.
On the aspect of whether the contesting defendants have been remiss in making the statements and representations to the public at large which have misled, or which have had the tendency to mislead the public-at-large about the purpose and efficacy of the said Tablet manufactured, marketed and sold by the contesting defendants, the Court noted that despite the defendants’ repeated assurances to cease making claims about the tablet being a cure for COVID-19, they continued to disseminate such information through various promotional activities being in direct violation of multiple Supreme Court orders, namely those dated 21-11-2023, 27-02-2024, and 16-04-2024, which specifically prohibited the defendants from making unsubstantiated claims about the tablet’s efficacy in treating COVID-19.
Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the statutory approvals obtained by the defendants from the Ministry of AYUSH and other regulatory authorities. It was evident that the licenses granted only permitted the promotion of Divya Coronil Tablet as an immunity booster and supportive measure for COVID-19, without any endorsement of its curative properties. The defendants’ claims about the tablet’s efficacy in treating COVID-19 were not only unauthorized but also contradicted the explicit rejection of their application to update the permissible use of the tablet to include treatment claims for COVID-19.
The Court emphasized the significant public health risks posed by the defendants’ misleading claims. During a global pandemic, such misinformation had the potential to cause individuals to rely on Divya Coronil Tablet as a cure, thereby neglecting appropriate medical treatments and exacerbating the public health crisis. Additionally, the Court noted that these actions constituted a public nuisance by spreading false information and potentially jeopardizing the health and well-being of the public.
The Court also expressed concern about the damage these misleading claims could inflict on the reputation of the Ayurvedic system of medicine. By making unsubstantiated claims, the defendants risked bringing disrepute to the entire Ayurvedic medical practice, which is traditionally respected for its holistic approach to health and wellness. The Court suggested that regulatory authorities might need to investigate potential violations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, concerning the branding and labeling of Divya Coronil Tablet.
The Court granted an interim injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from making, publishing, or distributing any statements or advertisements claiming Divya Coronil as a treatment or cure for COVID-19. This prohibition applies to all forms of media and any statements similar to those listed in the judgment. The defendants were ordered to remove all such misleading statements from their websites and social media platforms within three days. Social media intermediaries were directed to ensure compliance if the defendants failed to act within the specified timeframe. The Court left open the possibility for competent authorities to examine the branding and labeling of the tablet for potential violations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
[Resident Doctors Association, AIIMS, Rishikesh v. Ram Kishan Yadav, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5071, decided on 29-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kotla Harshvardhan, Ms. Asavari Jain, Ms. Rishbha Arora and Mr. Arjun Malik, Advocates for respondents
Mr. Inderbir S. Alag, Senior Advocate with Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Rohit Gandhir, Mr. Rishabh Pant, Mr. Raushal Kumar, Ms. Apurbaa Dutta, Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Mr. Hargun Singh Kalra, Ms. Ashita Nigam, Mr. Surender S. and Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocates for D-1 to 6. Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Shyamal Anand and Mr. Akhil Shandilya, Advocates for D-7. Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Mr. Vatsalya Vishal and Ms. Diya Viswanath, Advocates for D-8. Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal and Mr. Deepak Gogia, Advocates for D-9
