Can a ministry letter override a law? Supreme Court says no

A ministry letter quietly put a rule on hold. The Supreme Court just reversed it — and made every advertiser file a self-declaration first.

On 7 May 2024, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India did something unusual. It didn't just decide a case. It declared new law — binding on every court in the country — about what must happen before any advertisement reaches your television, newspaper, or phone screen.

The question was simple. Can a government ministry, by writing a letter, suspend a rule that Parliament's own law created?

When a single letter suspended a rule

The Indian Medical Association had come to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution (the right to approach the Supreme Court directly when fundamental rights are violated). Their complaint: misleading advertisements for health products, foods, and drugs were everywhere, and the government wasn't stopping them.

As the Court dug into the facts, it found something startling. The Ministry of AYUSH — the government department responsible for Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy — had issued an administrative letter on 29 August 2023. That letter put Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 on hold.

Rule 170 was the provision that let regulators take action against misleading drug advertisements. By suspending it, the Ministry had effectively told enforcement officers: don't bother. The rule still existed in law, but the Ministry's letter had made it a dead letter.

The courtroom fell silent as the bench read the AYUSH letter aloud — a single administrative memo that had quietly neutralised a statutory rule. Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah did not mince words. The Court held: "An administrative instruction issued by a Ministry cannot put on hold a statutory rule so long as the rule remains enforceable in law." If the government wanted to change Rule 170, it had to follow the proper legal process — not send a memo.

Why the self-regulatory system failed

The problem went deeper than one ministry's letter. The Court examined the entire regulatory framework for advertisements — a tangle of laws including the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954; the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

What the Court found was a system that looked good on paper but barely functioned in practice. Self-regulatory mechanisms for television channels and print media were grossly inadequate. Thousands of complaints had been filed, but almost nothing had been done about them.

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) — the agency meant to police misleading ads — had issued only 163 notices in four years. A thin stack of paper on the bench, those 163 notices represented the total output of an agency tasked with protecting 1.4 billion people from false claims. For a country with hundreds of television channels and thousands of newspapers, that number was embarrassingly low.

Some advertisers had gone further. Respondents No. 5 to 7 — certain companies and advertisers — had continued issuing deceptive advertisements even after the Court had ordered them to stop. The Court directed them to publish public apologies. The handwritten drafts of those apologies, submitted to the registry, sat in the case file as evidence of how far some would go to avoid compliance.

The fundamental right at stake

Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah framed the case around Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to life includes the right to health. And the right to health, the bench said, includes the consumer's right to be informed about product quality.

When a company advertises a health product with false claims, it isn't just committing a regulatory violation. It is potentially harming the health of every person who believes the advertisement and acts on it. The consumer's right to accurate information, the Court held, is part of the fundamental right to health.

This is why the Court invoked Article 32 — the constitutional remedy that lets citizens approach the Supreme Court directly when fundamental rights are violated. The Court wasn't just resolving a dispute between the IMA and the government. It was protecting a constitutional right that affects every Indian who sees an advertisement.

The procedural journey had been long. The original writ petition was filed in 2022. By 23 April 2024, the Court had directed the impleading of multiple ministries. On 30 April 2024, it had taken note of the IMA President's public interview and directed respondents 5-7 to submit apologies. Now, on 7 May 2024, the bench was ready to deliver a comprehensive order that would reshape the advertising landscape.

What the Court ordered

The operative order was sweeping. The Ministry of AYUSH was directed to withdraw its letter of 29 August 2023 with immediate effect. Rule 170 was back in force.

But the Court didn't stop there. Invoking Article 141 of the Constitution (which makes the Supreme Court's law declarations binding on all courts in India), the bench declared that every advertiser and advertising agency must now file a self-declaration before any advertisement is printed, aired, or displayed.

The self-declaration must confirm that the advertisement complies with the applicable advertising codes. The model for this requirement was Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 — a provision that already required self-declaration for television ads. The Court extended the same requirement to print and internet advertisements.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was directed to create a dedicated portal for print and internet advertisements within four weeks. No advertisement would be permitted without uploading the self-declaration on this portal.

The Court also made clear that advertisers, advertising agencies, and endorsers — including celebrities, influencers, and public figures — are equally responsible for false and misleading advertisements. If you endorse a product, you must exercise due diligence before doing so. You cannot hide behind the advertiser.

Beyond the immediate directions, the Court ordered the National Medical Commission to file an affidavit by 14 May 2024. All State and Union Territory licensing authorities were directed to file affidavits detailing what enforcement action they had taken since 2018. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs was asked to file an additional affidavit on the CCPA's actions. The Ministry of Health was asked to file an affidavit on data from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The Indian Medical Association's president was impleaded as a co-respondent — meaning the Court wanted the IMA itself to be part of the solution, not just the petitioner who had flagged the problem.

The ratio behind the ruling

The Court's reasoning rested on three pillars. First, and most fundamentally: "An administrative instruction issued by a Ministry cannot put on hold a statutory rule (such as Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945) so long as the rule remains enforceable in law." This was not merely a procedural point — it was a constitutional principle. No bureaucrat, no matter how senior, could undo what Parliament's delegated legislation had created.

Second, to protect the fundamental right to health — which encompasses the consumer's right to be informed of product quality — all advertisers and advertising agencies must submit a self-declaration on the lines of Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, before any advertisement is printed, aired or displayed. The Court declared this as law under Article 141, meaning it binds every court, tribunal, and authority in India.

Third, the Court held that advertisers, advertising agencies, and endorsers — including celebrities, influencers, and public figures — are equally responsible for false and misleading advertisements and must exercise due diligence before endorsing any product. No one can claim ignorance of the product's claims.

What this means for every advertiser

For anyone who creates, approves, or appears in advertisements, the rule is now simple: before the ad goes live, file the self-declaration. No portal, no advertisement. No declaration, no campaign.

The Court's direction applies to every medium — television, print, and internet. The Broadcast Sewa Portal already handles television advertisements. A new portal for print and internet advertisements must be created within four weeks. Until then, no advertisement in those media can run without the self-declaration being filed through whatever mechanism the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting puts in place.

The case — Indian Medical Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No.645/2022, decided on 7 May 2024 — now stands as a landmark. It is a reminder that in India, law is made by legislatures and interpreted by courts, not by administrative letters that quietly put rules on hold.

THE PLAY: Before any advertisement is published, aired, or displayed, the advertiser or advertising agency must upload a self-declaration confirming compliance with advertising codes on the designated portal — no declaration, no advertisement.

The Court ended where it began: with a ministry letter that tried to do what only law could do. The letter was withdrawn. The rule was restored. And every advertiser in India now has a new obligation — one that the Supreme Court has declared as binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.