Government defends inaction on rules restricting advertising of Ayurvedic medicines | Latest News India

In an August 2023 letter to States and Union Territories in the Supreme Court, the Union Government on Monday addressed the regulation of inappropriate advertisements relating to Ayurveda, Siddha or religion in medicines and cosmetics. He defended his request for authorities not to take legal action against any organization that violates Article 170 of the Regulations. Unani medicine.

The Center, which filed an affidavit in connection with the contempt case against yoga guru and entrepreneur Ramdev and Patanjali managing director Balkrishna over misleading advertisements, said the August 2023 letter was confusing and misleading. It claimed that it was sent to states and UTs to avoid necessary litigation.

“We respectfully submit that the process of final gazette notification will take more time to avoid confusion between various State/UT SLAs (State Licensing Authorities) and prevent avoidable litigation. Ministry of Ayush Please refer to the letter dated 29th August, 2019. Pending the final notification, all State/UT licensing authorities are advised not to take any action under Section 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. directed,” the affidavit said the day before the hearing in Supreme Court.

Citing numerous petitions against the condemned provisions in the Delhi, Bombay and Kerala High Courts, the Center has upheld its decision to repeal Rule 170 and said action against misleading advertisements would rather be brought under the Drugs & Magic Act. He said that it may be considered based on the following. Remedy law.

Justices Hima Kohli and Asanuddin Amanullah will take up issues on Tuesday regarding the regulatory framework to prevent misleading advertising and unethical medical practices.

In a series of previous hearings on petitions filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) over Ramdev’s controversial comments on modern medicine and alleged misleading advertisements on Patanjali products, the Supreme Court had condemned Patanjali. He had started a contempt suit against yoga guru Balkrishna and Balkrishna. The crime of disseminating false information that could undermine public confidence in the health care system.

On April 30, the court ordered Mr. Ramdev and Mr. Balkrishna to issue public apologies for past misleading advertisements and press conferences that violated the court’s orders, in order to confirm the integrity and visibility of the disqualified parties. They were instructed to submit a copy of the newspaper page showing the actual size. Two people apologize for insult incident.

A day before the court hearing, Balkrishna also initiated contempt proceedings against IMA president RV Asokan over an interview he gave to news agency PTI following the Supreme Court’s April 23 order expanding the scope of the judiciary. submitted an application requesting. Scrutiny of deceptive advertising involving “alleged unethical conduct” among doctors practicing modern medicine.

In an interview, Asokan criticized the Supreme Court’s approach to practitioners of modern medicine, saying that scrutiny is “unlikely” in light of the sacrifices that have been paid in the wake of COVID-19. There is no obligation to take a complete stance against those who are involved.” 19 pandemic.

Mr. Balkrishna argued that Mr. Asokan’s remarks were cruel in nature and a clear attempt to obstruct the course of justice and that the court needed to take judicial note of the episode.

In the previous hearing on April 23, the court had asked an additional petitioner appearing for the Center to submit clarifications on the recommendation of Ayurveda Siddha Unani Drug Technical Advisory Board (ASUBTAB) regarding omission of Rule 170. The request had been made to Attorney General KM Nataraj. It deals with the regulation of inappropriate advertisements and was earlier taken to the central government, which in December 2018 notified amendments to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

“On the one hand, the Minister has said on the floor of the House of Commons that we will take effective action against misleading advertisements. On the other hand, we are amending the ordinance in this regard… Can an ordinance be enacted? Isn’t that an arbitrary or colorful exercise of power? Isn’t that an incitement to some kind of wrongdoing?” The court asked the Center on this day. is not limited to a single FMCG or pharmaceutical company, and the court made clear that it intends to “consider the overall picture.”