Provide proof that banned items are not being sold: Supreme Court to Patanjali
The bench was hearing a petition filed by the IMA which had challenged the misleading advertisements endorsed by yoga guru and entrepreneur Ramdev.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Patanjali Ayurved to provide proof that it has ceased the sale and advertisement of 14 products that were banned by the Uttarakhand state licensing department in April, seeking to verify Patanjali’s claim that it issued directives to all store owners, media, advertising outlets, and social media platforms to adhere to the ban.
The order, by a bench led by justice Hima Kohli, was passed despite a later affidavit by the Uttarakhand government, informing the court that the ban imposed on April 15 was revoked by another state department on procedural grounds, following which fresh show cause notices have been issued to Patanjali on July 8.
To be clear, Patanjali’s lawyer told HT that the company has not yet received any official communication regarding the revocation of the ban, and until such communication is received, Patanjali remains bound by the Supreme Court’s orders.
Also Read | Ramdev claims anti-Ayurveda cartel targeting Patanjali: ‘Destroying nationalism which we denote'
During the court proceedings, Patanjali’s lawyers accepted the directive of the bench, also comprising justice Sandeep Mehta, that mandated the firm to submit an affidavit confirming whether the instructions have been followed and if the 14 Ayurvedic drugs have indeed been withdrawn from sale. The affidavit must be filed within two weeks, and the case is scheduled for a hearing on July 30.
“The respondent 5 (Patanjali Ayurved Limited) shall state on affidavit whether the request to intermediaries has been acceded to and whether the 14 Ayurvedic formulations have been withdrawn,” stated the court in its order on Tuesday
Speaking to HT, Gautam Talukdar, advocate-on-record for Patanjali Ayurved in the Supreme Court, said: “The order revoking the suspension passed by the Uttarakhand government is not communicated to Patanjali so far. Patanjali came to know of it through the affidavit filed by the state in the Supreme Court. Till any official communication is received, Patanjali is bound to comply with the suspension imposed on 14 products by the Uttarakhand state licensing authority on April 15.”
Also Read | Supreme Court on Baba Ramdev: 'Yoga good but Patanjali products...'
The bench was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) which had challenged the misleading advertisements endorsed by yoga guru and entrepreneur Ramdev and issued by Patanjali in alleged violation of several laws. The top court has been considering contempt action against Ramdev and Patanjali’s managing director Balkrishna for continuing to issue misleading advertisements despite previous court orders. The court is also addressing the broader issue of ensuring proper regulation of drug licensing authorities and misleading advertisements.
The court was not satisfied with the company’s affidavit claiming to have written to its franchise stores, distributors and advertising agents for immediately stopping sale and advertisement of the 14 medicines banned by Uttarakhand licensing wing on April 15. The ban was ordered as the medicines promised cures for ailments prohibited under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and the corresponding rules.
The company’s previous affidavit, filed on May 16, claimed that it had directed its 5,606 franchise and exclusive stores, as well as its e-commerce platform, to withdraw the banned products. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh, representing Patanjali, also stated that instructions were sent to all media platforms to stop broadcasting advertisements for these products.
IMA, represented by senior advocate PS Patwalia, sought time to verify Patanjali’s compliance claims but informed the court about the Uttarakhand government’s decision to cancel the ban. The state licensing authority’s affidavit, filed on July 5, explained that the ban was revoked because the original order did not provide Patanjali with the mandatory 15-day notice required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing with advocate Vanshaja Shukla for Uttarakhand, informed the court that fresh show cause notices have since been issued to Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy on July 8.
The Uttarakhand licensing department’s affidavit explained that on Patanjali’s representation against the April 15 order, the state’s Ayush department constituted a high-level committee of six members headed by former high court judge, justice (retd) Lok Pal Singh. The committee gave its interim report on May 17 based on which the ban was temporarily suspended and by the final report of the committee on July 1, the ban was cancelled. The committee held that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 required a show cause notice to be issued giving the manufacturer 15 days to respond. This was not followed by the licensing authority.
Issue of self-declaration certification
Various organisations also raised the issue of self-declaration certificates becoming mandatory for all advertisements. On May 7, the top court directed that all advertisers and advertising agencies must submit a ”self-declaration certificate” before publishing or broadcasting any advertisement. The self-declaration certificate is to affirm that the advertisement does not contain misleading claims and complies with all relevant regulatory guidelines. Following the court order, the ministry of information and broadcasting has introduced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal for TV and radio advertisements and on Press Council of India’s portal for print and digital/Internet advertisements. The certificate, signed by an authorised representative of the advertiser and advertising agency, needs to be submitted through these portals.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Internet and Mobile Service Providers, said, “The orders passed by this court have a great impact on online industry. Till the Centre takes a position on it, we should not be made to suffer.” Senior advocates Arvind Datar and Siddharth Dave appearing for Broadband India Forum and association of radio broadcasters vented similar concerns pointing out that they are already regulated by rules framed by government.
Responding, the bench said: “Focus of these proceedings is only to ensure there is a legal regime which operates efficiently. Our intention is not to harm any industry.” The court directed additional solicitor general KM Nataraj to convene a meeting of all stakeholders and file suggestions within two weeks.
The bench further appointed advocate Shadan Farasat as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter, as the case involved many issues.
IMA president apologises
IMA President RV Asokan was present in court as he, too, faced contempt proceedings for an interview given to a news agency where he made objectionable comments on the pending court proceeding.
Patwalia informed the bench that IMA has published full-page apologies for comments made by Asokan against the court. “IMA has a monthly publication and a full page ad says that it expresses regret and furnished an unconditional apology by making such statements to the press. If the IMA website is opened, there is a pop up of this apology and PTI also published it along with economic times etc,” Patwalia submitted.
The court took on record Parwalia’s submissions and granted Asokan exemption from personal appearance for the time being.