Written By: Apoorv Agarwal
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s proceedings in Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., In re v. Union of India, (2024) 19 SCC 193, popularly associated with the Patanjali misleading-advertisement case, have grown into an important discussion on misleading advertising, consumer protection, health-related claims, and the responsibilities of advertisers and endorsers. The significance of the proceedings goes beyond Patanjali Ayurved Limited. In its order dated 23 April 2024, the Supreme Court made it clear that its concerns were not limited to the parties before it. It also examined the wider problem of misleading advertisements by FMCG and pharmaceutical companies and asked the Union Ministries and State and Union Territory authorities to provide information about the action being taken on complaints. The order dated 7 May 2024 was particularly important. While exercising its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Court linked the right to health with a consumer’s right to know about the quality of products being sold. It also noted the absence of an adequate mechanism to ensure compliance with the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022. The Court therefore directed advertisers and advertising agencies to submit a self-declaration before an advertisement was printed, aired, or displayed, and directed that these directions would operate as law declared under Article 141. The later order dated 11 August 2025 did not introduce a new advertising regime. Instead, the Court recorded that the main reliefs sought in W.P. (C) No. 645 of 2022 had substantially been addressed through the orders passed during the proceedings and disposed of the petition, while keeping open the separate issue concerning the omission of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules,1945.
Background
The Indian Medical Association filed W.P. (C) No. 645 of 2022 seeking, among other things, action against Patanjali Ayurved Limited in relation to allegedly misleading advertisements and claims about the efficacy of its products. On 27 February 2024, the Supreme Court recorded Patanjali’s assurance that it would comply with applicable advertising and branding laws and would not make casual claims about the medicinal efficacy of any system of medicine. Until further orders, the Court restrained Patanjali from advertising or branding products as capable of curing diseases or disorders covered by the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and the relevant Rules. It also cautioned Patanjali and its officers against making statements against any system of medicine. On 23 April 2024, the Court made it clear that the issue went beyond Patanjali. It directed the Union Ministries and State authorities to provide information about misleading advertisements and the action taken on complaints. The Court also highlighted the impact of misleading health-related claims on vulnerable consumers, including children, pregnant and lactating women, senior citizens, and persons who are sick or infirm. What began as a case concerning one company’s advertisements therefore developed into a wider examination of how misleading advertisements, particularly health-related claims, are regulated and enforced in India.
The 7 May 2024 Order
The most significant direction in the 7 May 2024 order concerned a self-declaration by the advertiser or advertising agency. The Court held that, in the absence of a sufficiently strong mechanism to ensure compliance with the 2022 Guidelines, it was appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 to enforce the fundamental right to health, which it connected with a consumer’s right to be informed about the quality of products offered for sale.
Accordingly, before an advertisement was printed, aired, or displayed, the advertiser or advertising agency was required to submit a self-declaration concerning compliance with Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. The Court further directed that advertisements should not be run on the relevant channels or in print media or on the internet without the required self-declaration. It expressly stated that these directions would operate as law declared under Article 141. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting subsequently implemented the mechanism. Its 3 June 2024 announcement stated that self-declaration would be mandatory for new advertisements issued, telecast, aired, or published on or after 18 June 2024. The mechanism was made available through the Broadcast Seva Portal for television and radio advertisements and through the Press Council of India’s portal for print and digital or internet advertisements.
Endorsers, Influencers and Consumers
The Court also addressed the responsibility of persons who endorse products. It observed that advertisers, advertising agencies, and endorsers have responsibilities in relation to false and misleading advertisements, and specifically referred to public figures, influencers, and celebrities. Guideline 13 of the 2022 Guidelines requires due diligence in endorsements and expects an endorser to have adequate information about, or experience with, the product or service and to ensure that the endorsement is not deceptive. This is particularly relevant to start-ups whose founders, celebrities, or social-media personalities are closely associated with the brand. An endorsement should not be treated as separate from the underlying product claim. At the same time, the proceedings should not be understood as creating an automatic rule that every founder or influencer is personally liable for every regulatory violation by a brand. The legal consequences will depend on the applicable law, the nature of the representation, the person’s role,and the facts of the case. The Court also stressed the importance of consumer complaint mechanisms. It directed the concerned Ministries to establish and promote systems that encourage consumers to lodge complaints and ensure that those complaints are taken to a proper conclusion, rather than simply being forwarded from one authority to another.
Rule 170 and the Constitutional Dimension
The position concerning Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, requires particular care. Rule 170 concerns advertisements relating to Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs. On 7 May 2024, the Court noted that the Ministry of AYUSH had earlier issued a letter directing authorities not to initiate action under Rule 170 while steps for its proposed omission were pending. The Court observed that an administrative instruction could not put the Rule on hold while it remained legally enforceable. The Government later issued a notification omitting Rule 170. On 27 August 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the effect of that notification and stated that, until further orders, Rule 170 would remain on the statute book and in force. The constitutional dimension of the 7 May order is also important. The Court expressly invoked Article 32 and connected the right to health with a consumer’s right to information about product quality. It also treated the self-declaration directions as law declared under Article 141. The order therefore provides a constitutional basis for stronger enforcement of misleading advertising where inaccurate claims may affect health and consumer decision-making. However, the Court did not undertake a structured proportionality analysis in that order, and it would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that it expressly held the self-declaration regime to satisfy every stage of that test.
What This Means for Start-ups
For India’s start-up ecosystem, especially businesses working in health, wellness, food, pharmaceuticals, and consumer products, the proceedings carry a simple message an advertisement is not just marketing. Every claim made to a consumer carries a responsibility. Start-ups should review consumer-facing claims before publication, including claims on websites, packaging, social media, influencer scripts, and advertisements. Particular care is needed with disease- related or therapeutic claims such as “cures”, “treats”, “prevents”, or “permanently relieves”. The relevant product-specific laws and regulatory requirements should be identified before the claim is released. The compliance process should also be documented. A company should retain the final advertisement, supporting material for the claim, relevant licences or approvals, legal or compliance reviews, influencer disclosures, self-declarations where required, and records of corrections or takedowns. Influencer and endorsement agreements should also clearly address product claims, supporting material, disclosures, compliance requirements,approval of scripts,and correction or withdrawal of non-compliant content. The broader lesson from the Patanjali proceedings is therefore practical. Businesses should build advertising compliance into their product, marketing, and legal processes from the beginning of a campaign, particularly where the advertisement concerns health, food, medicine, or therapeutic efficacy. The precise legal consequences will still depend on the statute involved, the role of the person concerned,and the facts established in each case.
