'What About People Who Consumed These Medicines?' : Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand Authorities Over Inaction Against Patanjali

While hearing contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurveda over its continuing publication of misleading advertisements in breach of a Court undertaking, the Supreme Court today came down heavily on the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) for its inaction in the matter.It may be recalled that on April 4, the Court had issued notice to the Uttarakhand authority seeking its affidavit regarding the action taken against Divya Pharmacy (which belongs to Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust) regarding its advertisements.Today, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while rejecting the second affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali Ayurveda, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev, questioned the SLA as to why it must not think that the State authority was in cahoots with the alleged contemnors."[We] are appalled to note that except for pushing the file, the competent authorities within the State Licensing Authority have done nothing. The correspondence...between the Union of India and State Licensing Authority [shows] clear attempt on the part of State authorities to pass on the buck and somehow delay the matter, despite the fact that the first time that the State Licensing Authority was informed about the misleading advertisements was sometime in the year 2018. For these 4/5 years, the State Licensing Authority has remained in deep slumber", dictated Kohli, J as part of the order.Sr Adv Dhruv Mehta, appearing for SLA, attempted to persuade the court that the State officers were acting on the basis of an interim order passed by the Bombay High Court in 2019 whereby the application of Rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, prohibiting advertisements of Ayurvedic drugs, was stayed. However, the Bench rejected the argument at the outset as "absolutely rubbish".While emphasizing that the alleged contemnors' conduct was in the teeth of Drugs and Other Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, yet no action was taken solely because Bombay High Court passed an order with respect to the 1945 Rules, Kohli, J questioned: "Is a Regulation above the Act?"After hearing the parties, as well as Joint Director of SLA who was personally present in Court, the Bench directed the predecessor of the present Joint Director of SLA to file an affidavit in 2 weeks explaining inaction on his part for the entire tenure of his posting as a Licensing Authority. In addition, all District Ayurvedic and Unani officers holding post from 2018 till date were also directed to file similar affidavits in the same period.Besides the proposed contemnors, the Bench was inclined to issue notices of contempt to the deponent of the apology affidavit (present Joint Director of SLA) as also his predecessor. However, it refrained from doing so for the present. The matter was listed for further orders (so far as proposed contemnors are concerned) on April 16.Courtroom ExchangeAfter conveying to Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi (for Patanjali and its MD) that it was not inclined to accept the apology affidavit freshly tendered by Patanjali, the court turned to Dhruv Mehta (appearing for SLA) to flag concerns about the State's conduct in the matter."You think you had a protective umbrella under the garb of an order passed by the High Court? Why did you not point out the provision of law?", asked Kohli, J from Dhruv Mehta.Mehta replied, "We did issue show cause notices..."Justice Kohli countered, "why did you not point out that there is a statute above the regulation which had not been stayed by the court of law?"Dhruv Mehta: I agree...Amanullah, J: Let us be very clear that there are 2 Acts. The stay was with regard to another Act. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Kindly tell your instructing counsel to note down whatever we are saying, I have got 20 flags. You have to give specific reply. If you are not able to reply, you see the orderKohli, J: We have gone through your letter with a tooth combDhruv Mehta: Your Lordships are right...but they did undertake, they had stopped publishing...after the Bombay High Court interim orderAmanullah, J: After that for 2 years, [....] somebody has to bring it to your notice? Oh, very goodKohli, J: When they(Patanjali) violated this so-called...because they seem to be pretty much used to violating things, as far we can see...they violate orders of courts, they violate undertakings to the court...they treat you in the same manner, what do you do?Dhruv Mehta: We have to take action in accordance with law...Kohli, J: Now? In future? After we take action against youDhruv Mehta: Your Lordship is right...the statute gives us that power to take actionKohli, J: Why did you not exercise it? According to the central government, they can only direct you...the execution is to be done by you - the State. What did you wait for, for us to prod you?Amanullah, J: We are not going to let you free. Broadly, we are just indicating. First thing is, letter comes from the Union Ministry. It ...

'What About People Who Consumed These Medicines?' : Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand Authorities Over Inaction Against Patanjali

Debby Jain

The Court said that the authorities were in "deep slumber" for 4-5 years.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

'What About People Who Consumed These Medicines?' : Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand Authorities Over Inaction Against Patanjali

Debby Jain

The Court said that the authorities were in "deep slumber" for 4-5 years.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers