Can't Expect Media To Verify If Each Advertisement Is Misleading: Madras HC Junks PIL To Prohibit Commercial Ads By Doctors, Hospitals

The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that if the advertisements by the doctors and hospitals were found to be in contravention of the rules framed by regulatory authorities, complaints could be made to the regulatory authority which could take appropriate action. The court added that it could not expect the media to verify if each advertisement was misleading but could only expect that channels do not advertise something which was detrimental to the general public.

“In our view, we cannot pass such an order. If the petitioner finds that any party has advertised in contravention of the rules prescribed by the regulatory authority, he may complain to the authority which can then take action as per law. Courts cannot expect Television channels, newspapers, magazines, radio channels etc to verify whether the advertisement is misleading. Certainly, we would expect channels to ensure that sonneting that affects the general public is not advertised,” the court orally remarked.

The petitioner had sought to regulate the commercial advertisements made by the Doctors and Hospitals on TV channels, newspapers, radio, etc. He alleged that such advertisements could mislead the general public and thus some prohibition was necessary. He also suggested that action could be taken against the TV channels and other media which broadcast such advertisements. He pointed out that in some cases, 30-minute slots were given for such fake and misleading advertisements for “magic cure” for every disease.

The court was however not inclined to pass an omnibus direction. The court noted that while action could be taken by the Medical Council against the doctor or the hospital, it was not possible to take action against the TV channels and other medias for every advertisement.

“We have to pass orders that can be implemented. Not orders which are unimplementable,” CJ Shriram said.

The court also put forward a situation where a person, without any law degree, argues before a court. The court said that in such cases, the Bar Council could not take action against the person and instead a police complaint had to be lodged and action had to be initiated by the police. Similarly, the court remarked that when Fake doctors were advertising in media platforms, an appropriate complaint had to be made to the police which could investigate the matter. The court added that in such cases, it was not possible to expect the TV channels and media to take action when there was no law mandating them to do it.

“How do we expect a news channel or news paper to verify before advertising. How can you tell TV channels to take action against such fake advertisers. You show us the law which asks them to do it. Then we can pass orders,” the court orally remarked.

The court also noted that the Drugs and Magid Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 already contained remedies in cases of false advertising and that would effectively redress the grievance of the petitioner.

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) also made an appearance and submitted that the present case dealt with an issue where some fraud had to be investigated. It submitted that the case was not where general directions could be issued. The council also informed the court that necessary guidelines were already in place which dealt with advertisements in every medium and at this point, there was no necessity of passing further orders.

Noting that a general direction could not be issued, the court dismissed the plea.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

Case Title: M Mangaiyarkarasi v Union of India and Others

Case No: W.P.No.6249 of 2019