Patanjali Case: Centre Defends Letter Asking States To Not Act Against Ayurvedic Drugs Ads, Cites Technical Advisory Board's Recommendation

The Central government has defended before the Supreme Court its letter asking State/UT licensing authorities to not take action against ads pertaining to Ayurvedic and Ayush products under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 ("1945 Rules"). The development comes in the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurveda over the publication of misleading advertisements.As per an affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary of the Ayush Ministry, the letter was issued in view of the recommendation made by the Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) on May 25, 2023, that Rule 170 should be omitted.For context, Rule 170 of the 1945 Rules prohibits advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani drugs without licensing authorities' approval. The letter in question was issued by the Centre on August 29, 2023.Centre said the letter was issued since the final notification omitting the provision would have taken time.“It is respectfully submitted that as the process of final gazette notification will take further time, in order to avoid confusion among the various State/ UT SLAs and to prevent avoidable litigations, Ministry of Ayush vide letter no. T- 13011/1/2022-DCC-Part (2) dated 29.08.2023 directed all State/UTs Licensing Authorities not to take any action under Rule 170 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 as the final notification is under process,” the Union stated in its affidavit. Previously, the Court had asked the Union to respond on "what weighed with" its decision to omit Rule 170. In response, the Additional Solicitor General, KM Nataraj, submitted that he would take the instructions in this regard and clarify them. In its affidavit, the Union has cited several proceedings before various High Courts wherein this Rule has been challenged and interim relief was granted. “16. It is respectfully submitted that in its last meeting held on 25.05.2023 abiding to the aforesaid direction of the Delhi High Court to reconsider the matter of the Rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the ASUDTAB recommended to proceed with final notification for omission of the Rule 170 and its related Forms mentioned in the D & C Rules, 1945.” Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022

Patanjali Case: Centre Defends Letter Asking States To Not Act Against Ayurvedic Drugs Ads, Cites Technical Advisory Board's Recommendation

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags