Patanjali ads case: Self-declaration for advertisers, not enterprises, says MIB

The affidavit was filed based on the suggestions that the ministry received in a court-ordered stakeholder consultation it hosted on July 19 chaired by information and broadcasting (I&B) secretary Sanjay Jaju a

New Delhi: The ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB), in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on Friday in the Patanjali misleading ads case, recommended that self-declaration certificates (SDCs) for advertisements should be limited only to ads of health products and services from food and health sectors and be filed only by private companies or advertisers, not advertising agencies.

(Representative Photo)

The ministry also recommended that start-ups and micro and small enterprises should be exempted from having to file an SDC.

The affidavit was filed based on the suggestions that the ministry received in a court-ordered stakeholder consultation it hosted on July 19 chaired by information and broadcasting (I&B) secretary Sanjay Jaju and attended by officials from the department of consumer affairs, ministry of Ayush, ministry of health and family welfare, and industry bodies and companies.

The MIB also relied on the submissions that were made by the industry associations as impleaders in the case.

Based on the consultation, the MIB made six recommendations. It recommended that a single SDC should be applicable across all media platforms to reduce compliance burden, and the two portal SDCs for advertisements should be merged into one (instead of the two portals it is currently running to comply with the court’s May 7 order) to make the process more efficient and user-friendly.

It also said that the SDC could either be taken as a blanket certification for all ads intended to be released within one year from the date of filing the certificate, or the SDC could be made a part of the annual financial statement filed at the end of the financial year.

In the July 9 order, the division bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta acknowledged the burden the court’s previous order had placed on the advertising industry and said “it was not the intention of the Court to make the industry suffer without reason.” Other suggestions that the MIB received but did not recommend to the court included exclusion of programmatic ads (that are run on digital platforms through network agencies and real-time bidding on the open market), exclusion of user-generated content and online advertisement, exemption for members of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), and exemption for print media (as it is already governed by the rules of the ASCI and Press Council of India).

The stakeholders also recommended the scope of the SDC should be restricted to “medical-related ads with claims of healing, etc. to address the primary concern of misleading health claims” or to “Ayurvedic products, which are subject matter of instant litigation.” MIB recommended that food and health sector services and products should be defined by the ministry of consumer affairs, food and public distribution, the ministry of health and family welfare, and ministry of Ayush.

The stakeholders had also recommended that the period from June 18 (when the court had ordered the requirement for SDCs) to the delivery of the final verdict should be treated as a trial period.