M/S PATANJALI AYURVED LTD V STATE OF UTTARAKHAND CRIMINAL MISC APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2025:

DATE: 03/06/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma

FACTS:

The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the petitioners/accused, including Swami Ramdev and representatives of Patanjali Ayurved, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to set aside the summoning order dated 16.04.2024 and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3892 of 2024, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The case arises from a complaint filed by the State through the Ayurvedic Yunani Adhikari, alleging violations under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The complaint is based on various instances where Patanjali Ayurved is alleged to have issued misleading advertisements promoting certain medicines such as Madhugrit, Madhunashini, Divya Lipidom, Livogrit, Livamrit Advance, and others, despite repeated warnings and directives from the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India, and the State authorities to withdraw the same.

The complaint further details correspondence between the Ministry of Ayush and the petitioners, including directives issued on multiple occasions in 2022 and 2024 to withdraw allegedly misleading advertisements for a range of Patanjali-manufactured products including Patanjali Drishti Eye Drop, Mukta Vati Extra Power, Swasari Gold, Divya BPgrit, Cysto Grid, and Medohar Vati. The petitioners had earlier claimed that, in view of a Bombay High Court ruling, action under the relevant advertising rules could not be taken, and had also claimed compliance by withdrawing the contentious advertisements. However, subsequent promotional activity, particularly on Patanjali’s official Twitter handle, allegedly continued to project misleading claims, including suggestions of curing diseases such as cancer and obesity. Notably, the petitioners had also given an undertaking before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 645 of 2022 that no violations of advertising laws would occur, yet the State alleges continued non-compliance, supported by filed correspondence and media content, including advertisements and pen drives.

ISSUES:

The central issue in this case was whether the summoning order dated 16.04.2024 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 3892 of 2024 against the petitioners (including Swami Ramdev and representatives of Patanjali Ayurved) under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, was legally sustainable. The question before the Court was whether the complaint filed by the State contained adequate material and admissible evidence to establish that the advertisements in question were indeed misleading and fell within the ambit of prohibited content under the Act, thereby justifying criminal prosecution and the infringement of the petitioners’ fundamental right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court set aside the summoning order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, holding that the complaint failed to provide prima facie evidence or concrete allegations detailing how the advertisements were false or misleading. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), ruling that the summoning order suffered from legal infirmities and could not be sustained in the absence of specific, admissible evidence establishing a violation of the 1954 Act.

The Court reasoned that the fundamental right of an individual or entity to carry on a lawful trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution necessarily includes the right to promote such business through lawful means, including advertisements. However, if the State imposes restrictions on this right by labeling certain advertisements as misleading under the 1954 Act, the burden lies squarely on the State to demonstrate the falsity or deceptive nature of such claims through admissible evidence. In the present complaint, the Court found no mention of the specific nature of the alleged falsity, no analysis of the content in the advertisements to establish how they were misleading, and no technical or expert input substantiating any such claims. Mere reproduction of correspondence or submission of advertisements, without detailing the manner of deception or consumer harm, was deemed insufficient to justify criminal prosecution.

Moreover, while the State relied heavily on observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in contempt proceedings related to the same petitioners, the High Court clarified that its adjudication under Section 528 of BNSS must be confined to the legality of the summoning order issued by the Magistrate, not on collateral observations made in a different context. The Court emphasized that even in cases involving public interest, criminal proceedings must be rooted in procedural fairness and evidentiary sufficiency. It held that issuing summons without a foundational basis in law and fact amounts to an abuse of process and violates the procedural rights of the accused. Hence, the summoning order was quashed, reaffirming that mere allegations unsupported by cogent material cannot override constitutional protections or justify initiation of criminal process.

ANALYSIS:

The case of Swami Ramdev & Ors. v. State through Ayurvedic Yunani Adhikari exemplifies the judicial insistence on procedural rigor and evidentiary sufficiency in criminal prosecutions under regulatory statutes such as the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. At the heart of the dispute lies the question of whether Patanjali Ayurved's promotional materials violated the Act’s provisions by disseminating misleading health claims. While the complaint detailed numerous instances of continued advertising after official warnings, the Court found that the State failed to provide specific, admissible evidence demonstrating how the advertisements were objectively false or misleading. The Court observed that no expert testimony, laboratory findings, or direct evidence of public harm had been submitted, only administrative correspondence and copies of the advertisements, which by themselves lacked analytical depth to substantiate criminal culpability.

Furthermore, the Court’s ruling is significant in reinforcing the principle that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation or trade, includes the auxiliary right to promote products through legal advertising. If this right is to be curtailed through punitive legal action, especially under criminal law, such restrictions must be justified by compelling and well-documented evidence. The High Court rejected the argument that observations made by the Supreme Court in a contempt context could be determinative in assessing the legality of the Magistrate’s summoning order, emphasizing that judicial process cannot be substituted by general disapproval or executive dissatisfaction. The judgment thus serves as a safeguard against arbitrary criminal proceedings, ensuring that statutory violations are pursued with rigor, objectivity, and procedural discipline.