Uttarakhand suspends licences of 14 products of Ramdev's pharma firms

SC had recently criticised Ramdev for not complying with its directives in an ongoing lawsuit to stop misleading advertisements of some of his traditional ayurvedic medicines

Yoga Guru Ramdev Arrives At The Supreme Court For Hearing On The Patanjali Misleading Advertisements Case, In New Delhi, Tuesday, April 16, 2024. (Photo: PTI)

Agencies, 29 April 2024 : The Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority has apologised before the Supreme Court for its unsatisfactory action against Patanjali Ayurved for the misleading advertisements published by the latter against evidence-based medicine. [Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors].

In an affidavit filed through Advocate Vanshaja Shukla on Saturday, the Uttarakhand body stated that it has filed a criminal complaint against Patanjali Ayurved and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.

"The SLA has been vigilant in its duties and has taken appropriate steps to ensure due compliance under the said Acts and Rules ... SLA also has a family to look after and therefore any observations made by this Hon’ble Court will have a detrimental effect on his career .... SLA herein is completely aware of the gravity of the situation and seriousness of the matter at hand and has always endeavored to discharge its duties to the best of his capacity and in accordance with law," the affidavit said.

The affidavit was filed in response to a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against an alleged smear campaign carried out by Patanjali and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.

Patanjali case: Supreme Court says IMA should also put its house in order; address unethical practices in modern medicine

The top court had earlier pulled up the Uttarakhand government and the licensing body for being "hand-in-glove" with errant licensing officers who failed to take action against Patanjali Ayurved.

The affidavit said that body will continue to take all due steps against Patanjali Ayurved Limited.

"The SLA tenders an unconditional and unqualified apology against any inadvertent and unintentional non-compliance with the order(s) of this Hon’ble Court. The SLA would commit no deliberate or willful act which would disobey any order(s) of this Hon’ble Court or undermine its majesty."

It further said that that the manufacturing licenses for 14 of Patanjali's products have been suspended with immediate effect under Rule 159(1) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.

The body added that it has informed the Union AYUSH Ministry of the action taken by it against the Indian multinational company on April 24.

In November 2023, the Supreme Court had threatened to impose costs of ₹1 crore per false claim made in each advertisement that claimed that Patanjali products would cure diseases.

The top court had directed Patanjali not to publish false advertisements in the future.

Later, the Court imposed a temporary ban on such advertisements, and issued contempt of court notices to the company and Balkrishna after Patanjali failed to halt the publication of such ads.

The duo had then filed apology affidavits before the top court.

The Court had initially said that it was dissatisfied with the casual apology affidavits filed by Patanjali Ayurved as well as Ramdev and Balkrishna, saying that the apology seemed more like lip service.

Later, fresh affidavits were and apologies were also published by Patanjali in newspapers.

The matter will be taken up on April 30 (Tuesday) by a Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

In the affidavit, the Uttarakhand government submitted that its state licensing authority has issued a public notice stating that publishing advertisements contrary to law will attract strict disciplinary and legal action, including fine, imprisonment or both.

The affidavit filed by the State Licensing Authority, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, said it sought permission on April 12 from the Drug Inspector, Haridwar, to lodge a complaint against Divya Pharmacy and Patanjal Ayurveda Ltd for repeated violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedy Act. Has given. (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

"The SLA issued an order dated April 15, 2024, to Divya Pharmacy and Responden No. 5-Patanjali Ayurved Limited, stating that the manufacturing license for their 14 products, namely 'Swasari Gold', 'Swasari Vati, Bronkom' 'Swasari Pravahi', 'Swasari Avaleh', 'Muktavati Extra Power', 'Lipidome', 'B Grit', 'Madhugrit', 'Madhunashinivati ​​Extra Power', 'Livamrit Advance' 'Livogrit', 'iGrit Gold' and 'Patanjali Drishti' 'Eye Drop' has been suspended with immediate effect under Rule 159(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945," I said.

"District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Haridwar filed a criminal complaint under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act against Swami Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna, Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurveda Limited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. “Registered under the Act, 1954,” added the affidavit.The SLA said it will continue to take all appropriate and further steps against Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Limited as per the procedure laid down in law and the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

In an order passed on April 10, the top court directed the then Joint Director of the State Licensing Authority and all the officers holding the post of District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Haridwar from 2018 till date to file their respective affidavits explaining the inaction. Had ordered. Their share.

The Indian Medical Association has sought action against Patanjali for violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, which prohibits advertising of certain products to treat specific diseases and disorders, including diabetes, heart disease, high or low blood pressure. Imposes restrictions. And obesity.

The Ayurvedic company had earlier given an undertaking before the Supreme Court that it would not make any incidental statement claiming medicinal efficacy of its products or advertise or brand them in violation of law and would not make any complaint against any system of medicine, will not issue statement in any form of media.