The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed dissatisfaction at the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority, saying it only “woke up” and moved against Patanjali Ayurved and its co-founder Baba Ramdev like “lightning” for repeated violations committed under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act after the court intervened and passed orders.
A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was not impressed by the authority’s affidavit which said it had, on April 15, suspended the manufacturing licences of Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd for 14 products,‘Swasari Gold’, ‘Swasari Vati, Bronchom’, ‘Swasari Pravahi’, ‘Swasari Avaleh’, ‘Mukta Vati Extra Power’, ‘Lipidom’, ‘Bp Grit’, ‘Madhugrit’, ‘Madhunashini Vati Extra Power’, ‘Livamrit Advance’, ‘Livogrit’, ‘Eyegrit Gold’ and ‘Patanjali Drishti Eye Drop’ under Rule 159(1) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
“This is something you should have done as a routine. So, if you want to, you can move like lightning. Otherwise, you simply do not,” Justice Kohli addressed senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, who appeared for the State Licensing Authority (SLA).
The court said the SLA thought it fit to move only after the court, on April 10, sought an explanation from it on why no action was taken despite repeated communications from the AYUSH Ministry about complaints received against Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy products.
“It was only after our order that you (SLA) realised that there is a law - Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. You were oblivious to it till then. Now, you wake up and realise you have power… Why were you in limbo for nearly six years?” Justice Kohli asked. Justice Amanullah said the SLA has “shot from the court’s shoulders”.
Mithilesh Kumar, Joint Director of State Licensing Authority, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, tendered an unconditional apology to the court. In his affidavit, he submitted that directions were issued to every Ayurvedic/Unani medicine factory to strictly comply with the Drug and Magic Remedies Act. Orders have been issued to ensure that no pharmaceutical factory would “use claims like approved/certified by the Ministry of AYUSH on the label of their products”. The affidavit assured the court that measures were in place to make sure that advertisements would comply with provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995, Emblems and Names Act, of 1950; However, the court took exception to Kumar’s submission that the SLA had been “vigilant in its duties.”
“Are you giving yourself a self-certificate?” Justice Amanullah asked. Expressing its unhappiness with the affidavits filed by Kumar and his predecessors of the past six years, right from the time the first complaints against Patanjali started trickling in, the Bench gave them another 10 days to file fresh affidavits. The case was posted for hearing on May 14.