Supreme Court Asks Uttarakhand Govt To Finalize Decision On Suspension Of 14 Patanjali Products In Two Weeks

During the hearing of the Patanjali misleading ads case, the Supreme Court today was informed that the sale of 14 Ayurvedic products by Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy, for which licenses were earlier suspended by the Uttarakhand government, is continuing as the suspension order has been cancelled and a fresh decision on the issue is pending with the state government.

Considering the submission, the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta directed that the Uttarakhand government take a decision on the issue within 2 weeks and communicate the same to the Court.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for petitioner-IMA submitted that the 14 medicines are available over-the-counter, even though Patanjali had earlier reportedly stopped their manufacturing in view of the suspension of relevant licenses.

Patanjali stated that the suspension order was cancelled by the state government on July 1, after considering a report submitted by a Committee constituted to look into the matter. Thereafter, Uttarakhand government issued a fresh notice to Patanjali on July 8, pursuant to which, it entered appearance on July 18. However, the decision is now pending with the state government.

Taking into account the above, the bench passed the order.

Background

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.

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.

On the last date of hearing (July 9), Uttarakhand's affidavit was before the Court, however, the matter was re-listed in that regard as IMA sought time to file a counter. The Court instead considered an additional affidavit filed by Patanjali and asked if pursuant to its notice, intermediaries and social-media platforms have taken down ads relating to the 14 Ayurvedic medicines for which licenses were suspended by Uttarakhand State Licensing Authorities.

As no clear response was forthcoming from the parties on the above aspect, the Court directed Patanjali to file an affidavit. Additionally, it 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 in the context of a direction issued by the Court on May 7 putting restraints on advertising agencies.

In this regard, ASG KM Nataraj informed that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was having held high-level meetings with various stakeholders, including some of the applicants, with the idea of resolving the issues and difficulties faced by them. As such, the bench directed that the Ministry have further meetings and file an affidavit giving recommendations.

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

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