Patanjali misleading ads case: 'Authority tried to wash away everything', says SC as it rebukes Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for 'inaction'
PTC Web Desk: The Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority faced stern rebuke from the Supreme Court on Tuesday regarding its handling of a case involving misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved. The apex court flayed the authority for its alleged inaction and attempts to evade responsibility. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah presided over the Bench and expressed dissatisfaction with both the Authority and the company.
The Supreme Court criticised Patanjali Ayurved for failing to comply with its orders, particularly regarding the production of original records in response to the court's request. The Supreme Court asked counsel of yoga guru Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to file on record original page of each newspaper in which public apology was issued.
Meanwhile, the apex court also exempted the personal appearances of Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna for the next date of hearing.
Earlier, Justice Amanullah remarked on the inadequacy of Patanjali's submission of an e-copy of the advertisement, stating, "This is not compliance." The court expressed its frustration, with Justice Kohli stating, "I am raising my hands in this case; enough of this non-compliance of our orders."
However, the apex court acknowledged a degree of improvement in Patanjali's actions, particularly in the revised public apology published by the company. Justice Amanullah noted, "There was only Patanjali earlier, now there are names. We appreciate that. They have understood." This acknowledgment followed the court's directive for Patanjali to reissue a public apology, as the initial one was deemed insufficient.
Regarding the actions taken by the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority, the Court questioned the delay in suspending the manufacturing licenses of certain Patanjali products. The Authority informed the court that the licenses were suspended on April 15, prompting the apex court to remark on the sudden urgency, stating, "This shows that once you want to do something, you do it with lightning speed, but if you don't, then for years nothing moves."
The court criticised the authority for its apparent negligence over the past nine months, highlighting the need for accountability and responsiveness.
The Supreme Court also expressed skepticism regarding the Authority's claims of vigilance, questioning the effectiveness of its oversight. Justice Kohli emphasised the need for caution and accountability, stating, "You had to tread with caution. Can you afford to say you had been vigilant?"
The Supreme Court's involvement in the matter stemmed from a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), alleging a smear campaign against the Covid vaccination drive and modern medicine by Patanjali Ayurved. As a response, the court had directed Patanjali to publish a public apology. While the company initially complied, the apex court deemed the apology insufficient in size and directed for a more prominent one.
Additionally, the court has been vigilant in addressing misleading advertisements, instructing both the central and state licensing authorities to take action. The Supreme Court directive came after Patanjali continued to advertise products claiming to treat ailments, despite previous orders to cease such advertisements.
In light of recent developments, the Uttarakhand Government suspended the manufacturing licenses of 14 Patanjali products, including those from its sister concern, Divya Pharmacy. These products had been identified as containing misleading claims about their efficacy.
- With inputs from agencies
