Today, the Central government informed the Supreme Court that it will "forthwith" withdraw the letter sent by the Ministry of Ayush to all State/UT Licensing Authorities. This letter had instructed them not to take any action against ads related to Ayurvedic and Ayush products under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945.

This development arises within the context of the contempt case pending against Patanjali concerning the dissemination of deceptive advertisements. This occurred subsequent to a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressing dissatisfaction with the Ministry's stance, which asserted that the letter was issued based on a "recommendation" from the Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board.

Adding context, Rule 170 stipulates that advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani drugs are prohibited without the approval of licensing authorities. This regulation underscores the importance of regulatory oversight in ensuring the accuracy and safety of promotional materials related to these traditional medicinal products.

Until August 29, 2023, the Ministry of Ayush dispatched a letter to all State/UT Licensing Authorities and Drug Controllers of AYUSH, instructing them not to initiate or take action under Rule 170. This directive was based on a recommendation from the Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) to remove the provision. However, the formal notification for the removal of the Rule had not been published by that time.

Today, the issue was listed for consideration regarding the broader concern of misleading health claims made by Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs) and drug companies through advertisements, along with the Union's decision to remove Rule 170 from the 1945 Rules. Earlier, the Court had requested the Union to provide insights into the factors that influenced its decision to remove Rule 170. In response, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj had stated that he would seek instructions and provide clarification.

During today's hearing, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) referenced an affidavit submitted by the Joint Secretary of the Ayush Ministry. This affidavit highlighted that approximately 8-9 writ petitions challenging Rule 170 had been filed before various High Courts. However, the bench observed that none of these cases had received a judgment yet.

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) sought to emphasize that the Delhi High Court had urged reconsideration of the matter concerning Rule 170. However, the bench expressed concern over this assertion, questioning how the government could issue a letter restricting the implementation of the law when the final decision regarding its omission had not been made.

Ultimately, the ASG assured that the letter would be withdrawn "forthwith".