Supreme Court Closes Misleading-Ads Case Against Patanjali: A Turning Point in AYUSH Advertising

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India officially closed the long-standing case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved in connection with misleading advertisements. This landmark decision marks a crucial moment in the regulation of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathy) medical advertising and redefines the framework for consumer protection and media compliance.

The case originated in 2022 when the IMA accused Patanjali Ayurved, co-founded by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, of publishing advertisements that not only disparaged modern medicine but also promoted criminally misleading claims about their products. The claims ranged from assuring permanent relief from chronic diseases like hypertension, asthma, and diabetes to casting modern medicine in a negative light. The apex court received the plea, asking the Union Health Ministry, the AYUSH Ministry, and Patanjali to respond. The gravitas of the case was immediately clear as headlines like “‘There will be a complete ban…’: Supreme Court rebukes Patanjali in ‘false’ advertisement case” made waves across national media.SabrangIndiaReuters

By early 2024, Patanjali faced a series of judicial reprimands and legal orders. In February, the court imposed a sweeping ban on certain misleading advertisements and summoned the company to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. Reports quoted the justices saying, “The entire country is being taken for a ride,” underscoring the seriousness of the allegations.ReutersSabrangIndia The situation escalated when Patanjali’s initial attempts at public apologies were dismissed by the court as “lip service,” prompting stricter actions.

These actions included the suspension of manufacturing licenses for 14 products and heightened scrutiny over Patanjali’s continued presence of allegedly misleading ads online and in print. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah directed that the products be pulled from shelves, repeatedly emphasizing the importance of compliance.Live LawSupreme Court Observer Even as the company submitted revised apologies that mentioned both founders by name, the court’s concerns about sincerity lingered.Supreme Court Observer

Further complicating matters was the state drugs regulator in Uttarakhand, which the Supreme Court accused of inaction despite being aware of the violations since 2018. The court remarked that instead of taking enforcement action, the regulator had merely issued a warning—shortcomings the justices condemned.Reuters

Yet, in an outcome that surprised many, the situation took a turn on August 11, 2025. The Supreme Court disposed of the IMA’s plea, closed the contempt case, and lifted its earlier stay on the central government's deletion of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Rule 170 had mandated prior state-level approval for AYUSH advertisements, effectively tightening control over claims made in promotional material.LawChakra The court acknowledged that the relief sought by the IMA had already been delivered, pointing to the series of past orders and the AYUSH Ministry's deletion of the rule as sufficient. With this closure, it now appears that AYUSH-based ads can be run without prior state licensing.

This judicial conclusion carries significant implications. On the one hand, the verdict eliminates a cumbersome regulatory step, potentially easing promotional constraints for AYUSH companies. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s warning stands stark; any future violations of advertising norms or misleading claims could invite swift legal action. The court's earlier judgment also introduced new compliance measures, including making advertising agencies and celebrities liable for false claims, and instituting self-declaration certificates before publishing health-related advertisements.Live Law

Thus, while the case’s official closure may signal a reprieve for Patanjali, the verdict also sets a broader precedent for honesty and accountability in health-related marketing. It sends a clear message to consumer goods companies that regulatory leniency would no longer go unchecked. In a way, the ruling fosters a balance: enabling AYUSH brands to advertise more freely, while also making them more responsible.

For consumers, this verdict invites renewed vigilance. The removal of Rule 170 simplifies how AYUSH advertisements reach the public, but the risk of deceptive claims remains unless self-regulation and publisher diligence are upheld. Advertisers will now play a vital role in not just rehearsing legal compliance, but in preserving public trust through transparency and ethical advertising.

At the same time, this closing chapter could shape future legislation. The court’s framing around influencer and celebrity liability, and the requirement of advance self-declarations, suggest an evolving legal infrastructure intended to protect consumers in a digital age where misinformation can proliferate swiftly.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s closure of the case against Patanjali Ayurved marks both a victory and a caution. It paves the way for streamlined AYUSH commercial communication while reinforcing that regulations exist for a reason—and violating them will invite consequences. Whether this verdict initiates a more transparent era in wellness advertising, or sparks fresh controversy, remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that the judicial battle is over; what now begins is the era of post-verdict accountability and trust stewardship.