'Finally woken up': Supreme Court raps Uttarakhand drug regulator over 'inaction for years'

Patanjali contempt case: The Supreme Court while hearing Patanjali's misleing and contempt case, came down heavily on Uttarakhand Licencing Authority and said, 'Finally woken up’ from sleep. 
This follows suspension of manufacturing licences for 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its sister concern, Divya Pharmacy. 

Uttarakhand State Licencing Authority, in an affidavit submitted to Supreme Court, disclosed that licences were suspended on April 15, citing Rule 159(1) of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1954.  

Patanjali group also drew Ire from court for presenting e-copy inste of original records, Justices expressed frustration and said, “This is Not Compliance.”

"I am raising my hands in this case; enough of this non-compliance of our orders," bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

This action was taken promptly after Supreme Court reprimanded State Authority on April 10 for its failure to act against Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy for ir unlawful vertisements of se products.

Suspended product list

suspended products include Swasari Gold, Swasari Vati, Bronchom, Swasari Pravahi, Swasari Avaleh, Mukta Vati Extra Power, Lipidom, Bp Grit, Mhugrit, Mhunashini Vati Extra Power, Livamrit vance, Livogrit, Eyegrit Gold, and Patanjali Drishti Eye Drops.

SC slams SLA

Supreme Court strongly criticised Uttarakhand State Licencing Authority (SLA) for its prolonged inaction against Patanjali Ayurved. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed dismay that SLA only took action against Patanjali's misleing vertisements after Court intervened with strictures and strong observations.

"Within 7-8 days you did all that was supposed to do. How do you explain inaction for years? Why violation of orders of superior authorities to conduct inspection. What is your stand to assist court as counsel. Why for 6 years, everything was in limbo?" Court asked.

Court suggested that SLA only seemed to realise its powers after facing criticism from Court.

Criminal complaint filed

SLA, in its recent affidavit, apologised for its previous inaction and stated that it h filed a criminal complaint against Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, co-founder Baba Ramdev, and Divya Pharmacy under Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable vertisements) Act 1954 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

Justice Kohli remarked on SLA's sudden action, stating that y moved swiftly only when compelled to do so by Court, contrasting it with ir years of inertia. Senior vocate Dhruv Mehta, representing SLA, detailed actions taken, including informing Central government's AYUSH Ministry about suspension of certain Patanjali products.

Justice Amanaullah remarked on sudden realisation of power by concerned authority, highlighting swift action taken after years of inactivity.

"Not saying we are angry. re has to be transparency between bar and bench. Be careful. Own what you have done, seek apology. Have trust in court that you won't be targeted. We'll not be biased. That's assurance we give on this side," apex court said while hearing matter.

IMA vs Patanjali

This development arises from a case brought forward by Indian Medical Association, which seeks action against misleing medical vertisements by Patanjali Ayurved. Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved, Balkrishna, and Ramdev for publishing objectionable vertisements in violation of ir undertaking to Court. 

bench emphasised that its scrutiny extends beyond Patanjali to all FMCG companies making false health claims about ir products, reby misleing public.