Plea Alleges Patanjali Toothpaste Has Non-Veg Ingredient, Delhi HC Calls For Committee Recommendations On Categorisation Of Raw Materials In Drugs

The Delhi High Court has called for recommendations from the Committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Ayush on determining the criteria by which raw materials used in the production of drugs can be categorised into veg, non-veg or more categories.

Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the Committee, constituted by the Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB), to come out with its recommendations within 10 weeks.

The court disposed of a plea moved by lawyer Yatin Sharma seeking action against Patanjali alleging that its product “Divya Manjan” contains non-vegetarian ingredient but is sold with a green dot to indicate it is a vegetarian product.

Sharma alleged that Patanjali was misleading the public by misrepresenting the product and thus, sought action against it for hurting religious sentiments and cheating the customers.

A complaint was made by Sharma in July last year to the Ministry of Ayush on the issue. In its response, the Ministry said that there was no provision to mention any sign or mark to show that the product in question contains non vegetarian product under the labelling provision of Rule 161 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945.

It further said that the ASUDTAB Board in its meeting held on May 25 last year recommended to constitute a committee to determine the criteria for categorising raw materials used in drugs into veg, non veg or more categories.

The Ministry added that the interpretation of categorizing veg or non-vegetarian depends on various religious, ethical and regional consideration.

“A perusal of the aforesaid communication dated 01.08.2023 shows that a Committee has been constituted to determine the criteria by which raw materials used in the production of drugs can be categorised into veg, non- veg or more categories,” the court said.

It added: “In view of the above, it is expected that the Committee, so constituted, shall give its recommendations within a period of 10 weeks from today.”

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Yatin Sharma and Mr. Mohit Solanki, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, GP and Ms. Ira Singh, Advocate for R-1, 9 & 11; Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary and Ms. Tanvi, Advocates for R-7; Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel (C) for GNCTD with Mr. Arun Panwar, Mr. Rishabh Srivastava, Mr. Pradyumn Rao, Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Mr. Kartik Sharma, Ms. Nikita Vir and Ms. Prashansa Sharma, Advocates for R-8

Title: YATIN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 137

Click Here To Read Order