'If You Want, You Move Like Lightning' : Supreme Court On Uttarakhand's Action Against Patanjali, Says Inaction For Years Needs Explanation

Though the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority stated that it has initiated action against Patanjali Ayurved and Divya Pharmacy for publishing misleading medical advertisements, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 30) expressed dissatisfaction by pointing out that the Authority was inactive for several years and got "activated" only after the Court took up the issue.

The State apprised the Court that it has suspended the manufacturing licenses of 14 products of Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy and filed a criminal complaint against the company, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.

However, the bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah underscored that all these actions were taken after the Court pulled up the State.

"Long and short of it is, when you want to move, you move like lightning...and if you don't want to move, you drag your feet forever and ever. In 3 days flat...you did everything you should have done in routine. We didn't say 3 days...You should have done all that much earlier" Justice Kohli said.

Justice Amanullah supplemented by saying that after the previous Court direction, the officer "suddenly realized his power and responsibility". "How do you explain inaction for 4 years? Why everything was in a limbo?" the judge asked.

Further, the bench was unhappy with the non-compliance of its April 10 order which directed that all persons who held the post of District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, for the period from 2018 till date should file affidavits explaining the inaction on their part.

It told Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, who appeared for the State, that there was no explanation for the conduct by the predecessors of the incumbent officer. Even the direction that the incumbent officer should explain his conduct for current tenure of nine months has not been complied with, the bench pointed out.

"You have violated our order. I do not use the word non-compliance...Where is the explanation [for 'entire tenure']? It has to be on affidavit," Justice Amanullah expressed.

Going through the Authority's affidavit, the bench also came down heavily over an averment that the steps taken after Court's order of April 10 showed that the Authority had been "vigilant in its duties" and taken appropriate steps to ensure due compliance under the said Acts and Rules".

"[Steps taken] after the order of the Court, that's being vigilant? You knew that there were lots that we had said about your offices and not without reason. Your entire department. In the light of all that, can you afford to say that you have been vigilant in your duties?", Justice Kohli asked.

Justice Amanullah, on the other hand, conveyed displeasure: "You give a certificate to yourself? That certificate you will give yourself in writing? You wash away whatever you had done".

The bench also observed that the apology given by the incumbent officer was not "unqualified". Ultimately, one more opportunity was granted to the State to file additional affidavits within ten days.

The matter is next listed for consideration on May 7 and 14.

Also from today's hearing - Supreme Court Says There Is 'Marked Improvement' In Public Apologies Published By Patanjali & Baba Ramdev, Seeks Original Copies

Indian Medical Association President's Interview Interferes With Court Proceedings, Patanjali's Lawyer Tells Supreme Court

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