Which Are The Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy Products Facing Legal Scrutiny For Objectionable Advertisements?
In the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, the affidavit filed by the State of Uttarakhand in the Supreme Court on April 9 throws light on some of the Patanjali products which are facing legal scrutiny.The Supreme Court, in its hearing held on April 10, has expressed dissatisfaction with the measures taken by the Uttarakhand licensing authority, noting that the authority has done...
In the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, the affidavit filed by the State of Uttarakhand in the Supreme Court on April 9 throws light on some of the Patanjali products which are facing legal scrutiny.
The Supreme Court, in its hearing held on April 10, has expressed dissatisfaction with the measures taken by the Uttarakhand licensing authority, noting that the authority has done nothing except push the file and delay the matter. The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also remarked that the State Licensing Authority was informed about Patanjali's misleading advertisements around 2018. However, the Court rapped the authority for its inaction and stated that the authorities were in “deep slumber” for 4-5 years.
Patanjali products facing legal scrutiny
The affidavit filed by the Joint Director/State Licensing Authority, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Dehradun, Uttarakhand specified the products which were facing legal scrutiny.
They are :
'Divya Madhunashini Vati' and 'Divya Madhugrit Tablet,' both manufactured by Divya Pharmacy, a subsidiary of Patanjali and advertised for treating diabetes.
'Lipidom,' 'Livogrit,' and 'Livamrit.'
Divya Lipidom Tablet, Divya Livogrit Tablet, Divya Livamrit Advance Tablet
'Divya Madhugrit Tablet,' 'Divya Eyegrit Gold,' 'Divya Thyrogrit Tablet,' 'Divya BPgrit Tablet,' and 'Divya Lipidom Tablet.
Throughout their replies, Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy has taken refuge in an interim order passed by the Bombay High Court in 2019. Through this order, the application of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, prohibiting advertisements of Ayurvedic drugs, was stayed.
“It is submitted that in spite of multiple notices sent by the State Authorities to Divya Pharmacy and Respondent No. 5 Company-Patanjali Ayurved Limited; to all such notices, Divya Pharmacy/Patanjali Ayurved Limited has replied by taking refuge under the Bombay High Court's Interim Order . Therefore, in view of the above Stay Order and pending petition before the Bombay High Court, the SLA at its level, could not take coercive steps against Divya Pharmacy and/ or Patanjali Ayurved Limited.,” the authority stated in its affidavit.
Supreme Court refuses State's explanation
Picking holes in this defense, the Court emphasized that the alleged contemnors' conduct was in the teeth of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Notwithstanding, no action was taken solely because the Bombay High Court passed an order with respect to the 1945 Rules. Essentially, the Bench made it clear that the stay was with regard to the regulations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940 and not the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
The Court took great exception to the statement of the State authority that it had issued a warning to the company, instead of taking any legal action. The Court also noted that had it not intervened in the matter, the authority would have continued to abdicate its duties under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
"...instead of taking appropriate action as contemplated under the statue, the State Licencing Authority turned a blind eye and informed the Union of India that it has issued a warning to the concerned Firm and further action against the Firm would be subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is to say that if this Court would not have stepped in, the State Licencing Authority would have continued to abdicate its duties under the statute and await orders of this Court for implementation of the Drug and Magic Remedies Act," the Court observed in the order.
As per the 1954 Act, no person or company shall publish any advertisement of any drug which purports to cure any of the ailments specified in the schedule to the Act. The Act also prohibits misleading advertisements and publication of false claims regarding cure of ailments.
The Schedule to the Act specifies 54 ailments, including diabetes, blood pressure, vision problems,obesity, heart problems, sexual impotency, venereal diseases etc.
To recap, the Court was hearing contempt proceedings (on April 10) against Patanjali Ayurveda over its continuing publication of misleading advertisements in breach of a Court undertaking. However, the Court rejected the second affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna. In the same breath, the Court also refused to accept the apology affidavit filed by Patanjali co-founder Baba Ramdev as well, who is also facing contempt proceedings.
Ultimately, the Court also heard the present Joint Director of SLA and directed his predecessor to file an affidavit in 2 weeks explaining his inaction for the entire tenure of his posting as a Licensing Authority. In addition, all District Ayurvedic and Unani officers holding posts from 2018 till date were also directed to file similar affidavits in the same period.
In an order passed in February, the Supreme Court restrained Patanjali from advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it which are meant to cure the diseases/disorders/conditions specified in the 1954 Act and 1955 Rules.
The Court will hear the matter next on April 16.
Case Title: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022