Baba Ramdev, yoga guru and co-founder of Patanjali Ayurveda, leaves Supreme Court after attending hearing on misleading advertising by the company Photo | Ani
The case, which brought Patanjali co-founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to the Supreme Court, has caused chaos. At the root of this debate are important questions raised by the Supreme Court that reflect the collective conscience of the nation. Why did the federal government turn a blind eye and remain silent even as the company allegedly spread false claims about treatments and spread misleading advertising?
This article delves into the complexities of constitutional duties and social protection and explores whether states have a responsibility to protect civilians from violations by other private entities. The Supreme Court’s comment stated, “Despite detractors spreading the narrative that there is no alternative to modern science and that their products are the definitive solution and cure, the federal government remains inactive.” We will continue to ponder why the Union of India has chosen such a policy of inaction.” We express deep concern that it is clear that no measures have been taken.
This raises a question. Why did the State not allow a private entity to take legal action against the Indian Medical Association (“the petitioner”) when it could have taken legal action under Section 4 of the Narcotics and Magical Remedies (Offensive Advertisements) Act, 1954? Should we intervene in disputes between countries? , leading to possible imprisonment of the suspect?
However, an examination of the inaction of authorities like the Indian Medical Association and the National Licensing Authority to protect the rights of Indian citizens reveals the need for state intervention. It is clear, therefore, that the mere existence of legal avenues to pursue remedies available to private bodies such as the Indian Medical Association does not absolve the state of its responsibility to intervene when necessary. Became. In this case, the actions, or rather inactions, of state authorities such as the State Licensing Board, as revealed in the affidavit, highlight an alarming pattern of negligence and evasion of duty.
The court found that although it was informed of the misleading advertising and false claims in 2018, the state licensing board failed to take appropriate action as required by law. The court highlighted the inaction of the State Licensing Department, which instead of fulfilling its statutory obligations, chose to let the situation stand and only informed the Union of India that it had issued a warning to the Patanjali Group. He emphasized that. In response, the court stated that it is not enough to issue a warning in the face of a serious violation of the law: “In our opinion, this law is not intended to be a warning in the face of a serious violation of the statute.” said.
This juxtaposition highlights the interplay between private actors and state intervention, especially in issues where constitutional rights such as health, trade, life, and protection are at stake. The engagement of these constitutional rights requires a positive duty on the part of the state to protect one private party from the encroachment of another. At the heart of this argument is the sacred principle of “protection of the law” guaranteed to all citizens, enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Failure to comply with this principle makes a state liable for failing to provide redress to an injured party and for failing to prevent harm by a private party in violation of its constitutional obligations. It turns out.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, like the United States Constitution, extends to all people the social right to equal protection of the laws of the state. Similarly, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution provides for “equal protection”. This “equal protection” clause creates a judicially enforceable fundamental right for all citizens to be protected by the state. This article imposes a duty on the state to act for the protection of its citizens, and failure to fulfill this duty constitutes an unconstitutional state act.
In essence, the constitutional framework imposes on the state solemn duties as guardians of the rights of its citizens, ensuring protection from violations by private entities, and creating a society in which justice and equality flourish under the rule of law. It is intended to promote Moreover, as India moves towards embracing liberal constitutional theory, it becomes imperative to recognize that rights and liberalism are deeply intertwined. At the core of liberal constitutions is the principle that individuals have the right to protect themselves from the intrusive interference of others.
The Patanjali case is a striking example of the necessity of proactive action by the state to fulfill its constitutional obligations. There are few rights more fundamental than a citizen’s right to life, but Patanjali appears to be ignoring it by making false claims about the healing powers of its products. In the absence of state intervention, Patanjali exercised arbitrary freedom and autonomy with impunity. Had the federal government acted quickly, the controversial debate between allopathy and Ayurveda might not have escalated to its current intensity.
Therefore, the onus now lies with the Supreme Court to clarify and set precedents regarding state liability when one private party violates the rights of another private party. The Constitutional Court’s majority judgment in Kaushal Kishore confirms that the state has a duty to actively protect the rights of individuals under Article 21, especially when individual freedoms are at risk. Confirmed clearly. The judgment emphasizes the responsibility of states to protect against threats to individual freedom, even if they emanate from non-state actors. However, while this obligation is limited within the ambit of Article 21, the court has not yet elaborated on the broader scope of the state’s obligation to protect rights in Patanjali and similar cases.
(sonal gupta (I am a lawyer at the Supreme Court)
