Uttarakhand’s drug controller has repeatedly sought responses from Patanjali Ayurved regarding its misleading advertisements, which promise miracle cures for serious ailments. These inquiries, however, were made under a section of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules Act, 1945, which had been stayed by the Bombay High Court, rather than the pertinent provisions of the Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
Between April 2022 and February this year, the drug controller issued five such notices to Patanjali Ayurved. The company, its public face Baba Ramdev and its managing director Balakrishna, have faced criticism from the Supreme Court for their failure to adhere to a court order to stop such misleading advertisements. This order was issued in response to a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA).
The Supreme Court has also scrutinised the roles of the state and Union government in this matter. In what appears to be a response to this criticism, the Union government issued a public notice through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The notice, 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”, stated that ads or announcements claiming treatment of diseases mentioned in the schedule and publication of misleading advertisements making false claims is an offence under the Act.
However, it remains unclear why Uttarakhand’s drug controller did not mention this law in its notices to Patanjali Ayurveda and its subsidiary Divya Pharmacy. The notices were issued under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules Act, 1945, not the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, according to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) law by Kerala-based activist Dr. KV Babu.
The Supreme Court criticised the Uttarakhand government for failing to crack down on misleading advertisements that made false claims of curing diseases such as diabetes and asthma. The court also reprimanded the state and central governments for failing to register cases.
Dr. Babu, who has filed several RTI applications on the misleading advertisements, agrees with the Supreme Court’s stance. He alleges that the state government deliberately did not take any action against the company despite clear violations. He claims that since 2022, the authorities have only been communicating with each other without taking any concrete action against Patanjali Ayurved or Divya Pharmacy under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.
Dr. Babu further stated that after he raised the issue in February 2022, the State Licensing Authority conducted three inspections and issued five notices, but no concrete action was taken. The inspections were carried out in November 2022, March 2023 and March 2024 and the notices were issued in April 2022, November 2022, March 2023 and between November 2022 and February 2024.
Dr. KV Babu’s complaint against Patanjali Ayurved was specifically regarding a misleading advertisement by its subsidiary, Divya Pharmacy, published in a newspaper on 21st February 2022. The Ayush Ministry, in response to the complaint, asked the State Licensing Authority (SLA) of Uttarakhand to investigate the matter for contravening the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
However, the drug controller issued notices to the company under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules Act, 1945, instead of the aforementioned Act. This decision has raised questions as the matter related to Rule 170 is subjudice and pending before the Bombay High Court in Writ petition 289 of 2019.
In November 2022, Dr. Babu received a response from the ministry stating that no action could be taken until the court’s final decision. The Supreme Court, in its affidavit, stated that despite multiple notices sent to Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Limited, the companies have taken refuge under the Bombay High Court’s Interim Order.
The SLA, therefore, could not take coercive steps against Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Limited due to the pending petition and the Stay Order. Assistant Drug Controller, Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Krishna Kant Pande confirmed that they had issued notices to Patanjali Ayurved and Divya Pharmacy regarding the misleading advertisements, but the proceedings could not continue as the matter was subjudice.
Pande clarified that they were not favouring Patanjali Ayurved. He stated, “Under Rule 170, Patanjali Ayurved had to seek permission for advertisements. They hadn’t sought any permission and that is why they were issued notices.”
Meanwhile, Patanjali Yogpeeth spokesperson SK Tijariwala was unavailable for comment as he was in a meeting.
Also Read: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to Produce Two New Netflix Shows
