Supreme Court dismisses IMA plea against Patanjali, upholds abolition of AYUSH Ad rule

In a landmark ruling on 11 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India rejected Indian Medical Association's (IMA) plea against Patanjali Ayurveda and upheld the government's decision rescinding Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The rule had previously been mandating companies to go to state licensing authorities for advance clearance before advertising AYUSH products—those derived from Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy. (According to a report by TOI Mumbai)

The issue began from a 2022 petition by the IMA, which was in firm protest against advertisements released by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna's Patanjali group. The advertisements were blamed for disparaging modern medicine while falsely claiming to offer permanent solutions for chronic diseases such as hypertension, asthma, and diabetes. The IMA thought that such claims were not only misleading but also hazardous to public health and thus the Supreme Court issued notices initially to the Union Health Ministry, Ministry of AYUSH, and Patanjali.

However, in July 2024, the Ministry of AYUSH officially withdrew Rule 170 through a notification, effectively eliminating legal pre-approval of ads for Ayurvedic medications. Though the regulation had been created with the intention of limiting deceptive marketing, the Ministry argued that the withdrawal was part of sweeping regulatory revamp.

Despite the earlier judicial remarks that reiterated strict compliance with advertising norms, the Supreme Court found that the relief sought by the IMA to a large extent had already been granted. Previously, Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had directed the withdrawal from the market forthwith of the products consisting of unsubstantiated claims.

The final hearing witnessed Justice K.V. Viswanathan questioning how the state government would introduce a rule that no longer existed under the law. Justice B.V. Nagarathna also emphasized that the judiciary cannot restore a rule once it is abolished by the central government, thus showing that the matter had reached its legal conclusion.

Although the verdict gives temporary relief in the legal sphere to Patanjali, it is also a strong warning for all AYUSH product firms. Any subsequent violation of advertising standards could lead to direct legal actions. For customers, the verdict translates into this: beware and critically evaluate. In a time when traditional medicine is being marketed with minimal regulation, this is what they need to do.