Why Union Govt Didn't Act Against Patanjali For False Claims On COVID Cure? Supreme Court Asks

The Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali's advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases. In 2020, Patanjali advertised that it has developed products which can cure COVID 100%.

On the earlier occasion (on February 27), the Court had asked the Union to file a detailed affidavit explaining steps taken in this regard. Following this, (on March 19), after noting that the affidavit filed was not on record, the Court granted the Union of India the last opportunity to make sure that the counter affidavit filed is on record.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Ayush filed a 42-page affidavit, which the Court perused today (April 02). The Court posed several questions to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Union of India.

This was coupled with the Court's observations regarding the dissemination of information to the public about Patanjali's products being only supplementary to the main medicine. The Court also voiced its concerns over such Patanjali's claims given that they were during the critical period of the COVID pandemic.

“Because the contemnors were going to town saying that this is the answer and the cure and there is nothing available in the modern science that can address it(Covid). And they were aware of the fact that they were cautioned to not do that. We are assuming even if you did not put it in the public domain, at least you told them that it is nothing more than a supplementary, do not tom-tom it as a cure. Still, you chose to keep your eyes shut. We are wondering why Union of India did it?”, Justice Kohli said.

The Bench also firmly noted that even during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Union's committee made recommendations stating that Patanjali's product lacked sufficient evidence to support its claims and, at best, served as a supplement to other medicines. "What did you do to publicize that to the public?", the Court asked. 

“You yourself in your recommendations in your Committee, at the time when COVID was at its peak had specifically said that the product that they have come out with cannot be backed with enough material which they claim they have and at best it is supplementary to the main medicine. What did you do to publicise that to the public at large. 2020 was the critical period…the assertions continued even after that in the teeth of your own committee's recommendation saying that it is nothing but a supplementary to the main medicines that have been recommended by you, nothing could move at that point without the ministry being in the loop…”

While the Centre said that it has issued a warning to Patanjali, Justice Kohli noted that the Act does not mandate warnings but imposes imprisonment for non-compliance. In this regard, the Court recorded in its order:

"In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate a warning in the teeth of gross non-compliance of the statute."

During the hearing, Justice Kohli stressed the need for the Union and state governments to dispel any suspicion of complicity in this matter.

“What you have to dispel is that you and the state government are not complicit in this whole activity….Disparaging other fields of medicine in the manner that has been done by the proposed contemnors is most unacceptable.”

Following this, Justice Amanullah observed that even though Baba Ramdev has done a very good job for Yoga but that does not mean that he will start "picking holes on others."

Ultimately, the bench, in its final order, also noted that a letter dated March 8 from the Union of India to the State Licensing Authority of Uttarakhand, requesting details about their actions, made it clear that the Authority hasn't fulfilled its responsibilities as required by the law. The Court reasoned that the response received on March 12 from the State Department to the Union indicated that Divya Pharmacy(of Patanjali Yoga Peeth) had only been issued a warning. However, the Court opined that merely issuing a warning is insufficient when there's a serious violation of the law. Against this backdrop, the Court also impleaded the State licensing authority as a party. 

“ A perusal of the letter dated March 08 addressed by the Union of India to State Licencing authority calling upon it to provide the detailed action taken by it within two days of the issuance of the letter itself shows that the State licensing duty is not discharging its duty as contemplated under the Act. All that the letter dated 12th March 2024, addressed by the state department to the UOI, states is that the Divya Pharmacy has been issued a warning. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate a warning in the teeth of gross non-compliance of the statute.

“Be that as it may, as the State licensing authority is not before us, we deem it appropriate to implead it as a party in the present proceedings.”

Patanjali MD Acharya Balkrishna and its co-founder Baba Ramdev were personally present before the Court pursuant to the notice issued them in the contempt case.

Also from today's hearing - Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Patanjali Ayurved's Apology In Contempt Case,Warns Baba Ramdev Of Perjury Proceedings

Case Title : INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 000645 - / 2022