Media Organizations Raise Concerns About Self-Declaration Form Mandated For Advertisements; Supreme Court Asks Centre To Discuss

In the context of a direction issued earlier in the Patanjali misleading ads case putting restraints on advertising agencies, the Supreme Court today clarified that its intention is not to cause harassment to anybody. Rather, the focus is on particular sectors and aspects, and if anything has been misinterpreted, the same would be clarified.

The observation came from a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, which issued notice on multiple interlocutory applications (IAs) filed on behalf of Internet and Mobile Association of India, Association of Radio Operators for India, Broadband India Forum, Indian Newspaper Society, etc. highlighting issues being faced by the advertisement industry. 

"We are also of the opinion that the industry should not suffer in any manner...The idea is not to burden anybody, but to ensure that there is a regime and that it is operational and put in place in a proper manner", said Justice Kohli.

"We are also of the opinion that the industry (advertisement industry) should not suffer in any manner. The focus of this Court has already been highlighted in previous orders and needs no repetition. The Ministry is directed to continue the churning of ideas and have further meetings in this direction and file an affidavit making its recommendations," the bench observed in the order.

For context, the applications were filed pursuant to a direction issued by the court in its May 7 order, by invoking its power under Article 32 of the Constitution. The same was as follows:

"...henceforth, before an advertisement is printed/aired/displayed, a Self declaration shall be submitted by the advertiser/advertising agency on the lines contemplated in Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994...Proof of uploading the Self-declaration shall be made available by the advertisers to the concerned broadcaster/printer/publisher/T.V. Channel/electronic media, as the case may be, for the records. No advertisements shall be permitted to be run on the relevant channels and/or in the print media/internet without uploading the self declaration as directed above."

As per the order, the direction was to be treated as law declared by the Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (representing applicant-Internet and Mobile Association of India) submitted that the direction issued "is having a great impact on the online industry". He requested that the Union government look into the matter as quickly as possible so that the industry does not suffer, "which was not the intention of the order also".

Justice Kohli responded to Sibal saying, "at the highest level...we don't want that there should be layers of approvals...whatever has to be shortened and simplified should be done".

At this juncture, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (representing applicant-Association of Radio Operators) could be heard pointing out that there are ads which are only of 10 seconds in duration. Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, appearing for Broadband India Forum, also raised similar concerns,

Taking note, Justice Kohli said, "we understand...some of them are walk-in ads...we have gone through it. The intention is not to cause any harassment to anybody. The intention is only to focus on particular sectors and particular aspects. Whatever is extraneous and somehow is being interpreted otherwise shall be clarified. But we must have clarity on this".

The judge also enquired from Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj (appearing for Union) whether the Government had convened any meeting to be convened to address the above aspects. The ASG informed that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has already held high-level meetings with various stakeholders, including some of the applicants, with the idea of resolving the issues and difficulties faced by them.

Hearing the ASG, the bench directed that the Ministry continue the efforts and have further meetings, whereupon an affidavit giving recommendations shall be filed.

"Such meetings shall be taken further...All the intervenors and others who are deemed appropriate shall be invited in the said meetings to streamline the issues and point out the difficulties being faced by the intervenors and the manner in which they can be resolved."

On the suggestion of counsels representing the parties, Advocates Shashank Mishra, Prabas, and K Parmeswar were appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in dealing with the interlocutory/intervention applications.

"[The three] Advocates shall coordinate with each other and prepare a list of all the applications for intervention, with the prayers made (and interim reliefs sought), in a tabulated form for the ready reference of the court".

Background

To recap, IMA had filed the case against Patanjali Ayurved for its "misleading" claims and "disparaging" advertisements against the Allopathic system of medicines. Subsequently, Patanjali had given an undertaking to the court that no such statements would be made in future. However, the misleading ads continued, leading the court to initiate contempt proceedings against Patanjali, its MD Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev for continuing to publish misleading medical advertisements in breach of the court undertaking.

In the proceedings that followed, Patanjali, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna tendered apologies to the court, but the same were rejected. After the court's rap, Patanjali published an apology in newspapers giving its own name alongside that of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.

During a hearing in April 2024, the Court also turned the spotlight on IMA asking it to "set its house in order" by taking action on complaints regarding the unethical practices of its members. Following that, IMA President-Dr RV Asokan gave a press interview, where he reportedly slammed the Supreme Court's observations. In response, Patanjali filed an application in the pending proceedings seeking action against Dr Asokan for his "contemptuous" remarks against the Court. On May 7, the Court issued notice on that application to the IMA President.

On the last of hearing (May 14), the court expressed dissatisfaction with the apology furnished by Dr Asokan for his remarks in the media interview. The IMA President conveyed an unconditional apology to the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah (which was then hearing the matter). However, the bench was not happy with his conduct.

Since the court slammed State Licensing Authorities (particularly of Uttarakhand) for inaction on their part, certain affidavits had been filed, while others remained to be placed before the court. Time was given to do the needful, with the bench recording that it would consider Uttarakhand's affidavit on the next date.

Appearance: Senior Advocates PS Patwalia (for IMA), Mukul Rohatgi (for Patanjali), Balbir Singh (for Baba Ramdev), Arvind Datar (for applicant-Broadband India Forum), Kapil Sibal (for applicant-Internet and Mobile Association of India) and Siddharth Dave (for applicant-Association of Radio Operators for India)

Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022