Patanjali sent a notice, but not under the landmark 1954 Act.latest news india

Utarkhand drug controllers have filed a section of the Narcotic Drugs and Cosmetics Regulation Act, 1945 pending in the Bombay High Court against Patanjali Ayurveda over misleading advertisements promising miracle cures for serious illnesses. Based on the provisions of the Narcotics and Cosmetics Act, no response was requested. The Magical Remedies (Offensive Advertising) Act of 1954, according to official documents and people familiar with the matter.

This happened not once but five times between April 2022 and February this year. Patanjali, the company’s public face Baba Ramdev, and its managing director Balakrishna have received a court order to stop such misleading advertisements following a lawsuit filed against the company. It has been criticized by the Supreme Court in connection with its failure to comply with the order. By Indian Medical Association (IMA).

The role of the state and federal governments is also under court oversight.

In what some see as a reaction to such criticism, the Union government, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, published in several newspapers last week ‘Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homeopathy or the like. A public notice titled “No Advertising” was issued. Any other medicine or treatment for a disease listed in the Medicines and Magical Cures (Offensive Advertising) Act 1954. The notice states that advertisements and announcements “claiming to treat diseases” and “publishing misleading advertisements making false claims” as mentioned in the said schedule are offenses under the Act. .

What is not clear, however, is why Ayurveda and Unani Services, a drug control company in Uttarakhand, did not even mention this law in its notice to Patanjali Ayurveda and its subsidiary Divya Pharmacy. be.

According to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Narcotics Controller has filed a complaint under Section 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Regulation Act, 1945 and not under the Medicines and Magical Remedies (Offensive Advertisement) Act, 1954. A notice has been issued to the company. Dr. KV Babu is a Kerala-based activist. Rule 170 prohibits advertising of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines without the approval of the state licensing authority. The case was stayed by the Bombay High Court in February 2019 following a petition by the Ayurvedic Medicines Manufacturers Association, of which Divya Pharmacy is a member.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Uttarakhand government had “turned a blind eye” by failing to crack down on misleading advertisements that falsely claimed to cure diseases such as diabetes and asthma, and said drug controllers’ actions should be monitored by the judiciary. placed below. Justices Hima Kohli and Asanuddin Amanullah also pulled up the state and central governments for failing to register cases.

“I agree with the Supreme Court,” said Dr. KV Babu, a doctor in Kerala who has filed multiple RTI applications over misleading advertisements, adding that despite clear violations, the state government claimed that the company intentionally did not take any action against the company.

“The fact is that what they have been doing since 2022 is mutually (Uttarakhand) without taking any concrete action against Patanjali Ayurveda or Divya Pharmacy based on drugs and magical remedies. The complaint was filed in February 2022 under the 1954 Act. “I submitted it,” he said.

Dr Babu said that after raising the issue in February 2022, the State Licensing Authority (SLA) conducted three inspections and issued five notices. “However, no concrete action was taken. Inspections were carried out in November 2022, March 2023 and March 2024. April 2022, November 2022 and March 2023. , five notifications were issued to Patanjali Ayurveda in November-December 2022 and January-February 2024.”

His complaint specifically pertains to a misleading advertisement by Divya Pharmacy published in a newspaper on February 21, 2022, on the basis of which the Ministry of Ayush has ordered SLA Uttarakhand to issue an order on drugs and magical remedies. 1954 (advertisements that are objectionable) and called for an investigation into the matter as it violates the “advertisement withdrawal” Act.

However, as mentioned above, the Medicines Controller instead issued a notice to the company under section 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Regulation Act, 1945.

In November 2022, Dr. Babu was informed by the ministry that no action will be taken as the matter (related to Rule 170) is “under consideration and pending before the Mumbai High Court in Writ Petition No. 289 of 2019. I received a response saying, “I can’t do that.” Necessary measures may be taken according to the final decision of the court. ”

In the Supreme Court, SLA stated in an affidavit: To all such notices, Divya Pharmacy/Patanjali Ayurveda Limited has responded by taking refuge under the Bombay High Court’s interim order (Appendix R-3). ”

“Therefore, in view of the above stay order and the pending petition before the Bombay High Court, the court and its level SLA may take coercive action against Divya Pharmacy and/or Patanjali Ayurveda Limited. I couldn’t do it,” he added.

Krishna Kant Pande, Assistant Drug Controller, Ayurveda Unani Services, said notices were issued to Patanjali Ayurveda and Divya Pharmacy over the issue of misleading advertisements, which were cited as punishment. He said he could not proceed further.

Pande said they were in no way supporting Patanjali Ayurveda and said, “As per Rule 170, Patanjali Ayurveda had to seek permission to advertise. They did not seek any permission. Therefore, the notification was issued,” he said.

Patanjali Yogpeeth spokesperson SK Tijariwala said talks were underway.