The Supreme Court has sought clarification from the Centre regarding the withdrawal of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Rule 170 specifically addressed objectionable advertisements of ayurvedic, siddha, and unani drugs. The court’s inquiry follows a petition filed by a social worker alleging that several television channels were broadcasting objectionable advertisements promoting such drugs. The petitioner argued that these advertisements were in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which prohibits the promotion of drugs for certain ailments.

The Supreme Court has given the Centre two weeks to respond to its query and provide an explanation for the withdrawal of Rule 170. The court is seeking an explanation for the reasoning behind the decision and its implications on the regulation of objectionable advertisements of ayurvedic, siddha, and unani drugs.

The petition also raised the issue of Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurved and claimed that the company’s advertisements were violations of the law. The petitioner argued that the company’s apology for misleading advertisements should be on the same scale as its front-page advertisements. The court is expected to address this matter in subsequent hearings.

This case brings attention to the regulation of advertisements for ayurvedic, siddha, and unani drugs. The court’s inquiry and subsequent response from the Centre will shed light on the reasons behind the withdrawal of Rule 170 and its impact on the promotion and sale of these drugs.

The Supreme Court’s intervention and insistence on a response from the Centre highlight the importance of regulating objectionable advertisements to protect consumers and ensure that misleading information about drugs is not disseminated. As the case develops, it will be interesting to see how the court addresses the issues raised and what implications this has for future regulations in the advertising of pharmaceutical products.