Patanjali Receives Notices, Not Under Crucial 1954 Law

In a series of events spanning from April 2022 to February of this year, Uttarakhand’s drug controller sought responses from Patanjali Ayurved regarding its misleading advertisements promising miracle cures for serious ailments. The company, along with its public face Baba Ramdev and managing director Balakrishna, have faced criticism from the Supreme Court over lapses in adhering to an order to cease such misleading ads, following a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

The drug controller’s notices were issued under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules Act, 1945, rather than under the pertinent provisions of the Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Rule 170 prohibits the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs without approval from the state licensing authority, a rule that had been stayed by the Bombay High Court in 2019. This discrepancy in the legal approach has raised questions about the handling of the matter.

The situation intensified when the Supreme Court criticized the Uttarakhand government for not taking action against the misleading advertisements, especially those claiming to cure diseases like diabetes and asthma. The court also reprimanded the state and central governments for failing to register cases in this regard.

A Kerala-based activist, Dr. KV Babu, who has been actively pursuing this issue through Right to Information (RTI) applications, highlighted that the state government did not take concrete action against Patanjali Ayurved despite clear violations. He pointed out that while the State Licensing Authority (SLA) conducted inspections and issued notices, no significant action was taken. The SLA mentioned that they couldn’t take coercive steps against Patanjali Ayurved due to a stay order from the Bombay High Court.

Dr. Babu’s complaint, specifically regarding a misleading advertisement by Divya Pharmacy, led to an investigation by the Ayush ministry. However, instead of invoking the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the drug controller issued notices under Rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules Act, 1945.

The recent public notice issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, titled “Prohibition of advertisement of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani & Homeopathy or any other drug or treatment of diseases mentioned in Schedule of Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954,” has raised questions about the discrepancy in legal actions taken by the drug controller.

In response to these developments, Assistant Drug Controller, Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Krishna Kant Pande, clarified that the notices were issued to Patanjali Ayurved and Divya Pharmacy for misleading advertisements, but they couldn’t proceed further due to the matter being subjudice.

The controversy surrounding the handling of Patanjali’s misleading ads and the legal actions taken has sparked debates about the enforcement of regulations in the pharmaceutical and Ayurvedic sectors. The issue remains unresolved as questions linger about the adherence to relevant laws and the role of regulatory bodies in ensuring compliance.