Patanjali’s notices not sent under important 1954 law

The legal saga of Ramdev’s Patanjali that began in April 2022, Uttarakhand’s drug controller sought responses from the company over its misleading advertisements promising miracle cures for serious ailments under a section of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules Act, 1945 that had been stayed by the Bombay high court, and not under the pertinent provisions of the Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, according to official documents and people aware of the matter.

Following a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Patanjali’s managing director Balakrishna, and Ramdev have recently faced criticism from the Supreme Court over lapses in adhering to an order to stop such misleading ads.

Between April 2022 and February this year, Patanjali was sent five notices. The court has also noted the roles of State and the Union government in letting Ramdev’s misleading ads run on TV.

Recently, the Union government, through the ministry of health and family welfare, issued a public notice in several newspapers in the past week 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”. 

The notice said that ads or announcements “claiming treatment of diseases” mentioned in the aforementioned schedule and “publication of misleading advertisements making false claims” is an offence under the Act, reported Hindustan Times.

But it’s unclear as to why Uttarakhand’s drug controller, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, did not even mention this law in its notices to Patanjali Ayurveda and its subsidiary Divya Pharmacy.

The drug controller issued notices to the company under Rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules Act, 1945, and not under Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, according to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) law, by Kerala-based activist Dr KV Babu.

Rule 170 prohibits the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani drugs without the state licensing authority’s approval. It was stayed by the Bombay high court in February 2019 following a petition by the Ayurvedic Drug Manufacturers Association, of which Divya Pharmacy is a member.

After the recent Supreme Court hearing, the drug controller’s action came under light as the court on Wednesday rightly noted that the Uttarakhand government kept its “eyes shut” by not cracking down on misleading advertisements that made false claims of curing diseases such as diabetes and asthma. 

A bench of 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,” Kerala-based doctor Dr KV Babu was quoted as saying. He has filed several RTI applications on the misleading advertisements, alleging that the state government deliberately did not take any action against the company despite clear violations.

“The fact is that all they have been doing since 2022 is communicating with each other (Uttarakhand drug controller with the Ayush ministry and the local drug inspector) without taking any concrete action against Patanjali Ayurved or Divya Pharmacy under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 under which I had lodged the complaint in February 2022,” K V Babu said.

Patanjali’s controversy raises questions about enforcement of regulations in the pharmaceutical and Ayurvedic sectors and adherence to relevant laws and the role of regulatory bodies in ensuring compliance.