New Delhi: For almost two years, the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) behaved like a post office – simply forwarding letters of the Union Ayush Ministry to Patanjali’s Divya Pharmacy over violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954, and sending back the latter’s responses.
It did not take any action against the company, part of Patanjali Yogpeeth (Trust), which manufactures ayurveda products.
The Uttarakhand government’s affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court last week shows that the SLA did not take appropriate steps under the law despite the central ministry asking it to do so on two different occasions – once in February 2022 and then again in February 2023.
It was only in March this year that the Uttarakhand SLA warned Divya Pharmacy against an action in case it did not stop the objectionable advertisements.
The top court is hearing a contempt case against Patanjali, its founder, Baba Ramdev, and his associate, Acharya Balkrishna. Last week, the court admonished the Uttarakhand government for “twiddling its fingers” and warned of “ripping it apart” for its inaction against Divya Pharmacy, accused of violating the law.
In a letter sent to the director of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Dehradun, the Ayush ministry in February, 2023 unequivocally told the Uttarakhand SLA that the matter regarding misleading advertisements issued by Divya Pharmacy must be “investigated under the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, 1954” and appropriate action be taken accordingly.
The central ministry’s clarification came in response to a letter it received from the Uttarakhand SLA in which the latter quoted multiple replies it had received from Divya Pharmacy that referred to a Bombay High Court order of February 2019. In this order, the high court had restrained government authorities from taking coercive action against ayurvedic drug manufacturers under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The Uttarakhand SLA’s letter further said that due to the Bombay HC order, it was not possible to take action against the “misleading advertisements” of five products manufactured by Divya Pharmacy. But since it was repeatedly receiving complaint letters regarding these advertisements, the SLA asked the Ayush ministry to provide “proper guidelines regarding” the medical use of the medicines.
Inserted in 2018, Rule 170 mandates a manufacturer to seek permission from the state licensing authority before advertising an Ayush product. The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954, bars advertisement of drugs that claim to treat 54 diseases listed under it. Cancer, diabetes, glaucoma, heart diseases and blood pressure, among others, are on the list.
Being a penal provision, the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954, calls for a designated officer to act against the defaulting company in case there is an infraction of the law. The act provides for a six-month jail term if the trial court convicts the alleged offender.
Divya Pharmacy has been under the scanner for issuing misleading advertisements and accused of violating the act since February 2022. The affidavit shows that the alleged violation was first flagged by the Ayush ministry through its letter to the Uttarakhand SLA, which mentioned advertisements of two medicines – Madhunashini and Madhugrit.
From here onwards, a chain of letters commenced between the Uttarakhand SLA, the drug inspector of Ayurvedic and Unani, Divya Pharmacy and the Ayush ministry.
In response to the ministry’s letter, the SLA wrote to the Haridwar drug inspector, who in turn sought an explanation from Divya Pharmacy. In its reply, the company denied any violation and referred to the Bombay High Court order of February 2019. This response was simply forwarded to the Ayush ministry by the Uttarakhand SLA in May 2022.
Meanwhile, the ministry sent another message to the SLA in April 2022. This time, it was about advertisements of Lipidom, Livogrit and Livamrit. The letter asked the SLA to take action and inform the ministry about it.
In compliance, the SLA issued notice to Divya Pharmacy on 26 April, 2022. Instead of taking any action or holding an inquiry, it forwarded Divya Pharmacy’s response to it to the Ayush Ministry. The firm’s response was similar to the last one.
Even before the ministry received the SLA’s compliance report on its second letter, it shot off a third in May 2022, pointing to advertisements of three more Divya Pharmacy products – Eyegrit Gold, Drishti Eye Drop and Bpgrit. As done earlier, the SLA forwarded this letter to the company, alongwith a copy to the drug inspector in Haridwar with a direction to him to conduct an on-site inspection of the firm.
Also read: Why Ramdev’s legal setback in Patanjali ads case is unlikely to shake BJP’s support for him
Four notices, the affidavit said, were sent to Divya Pharmacy between July 2022 and September on the basis of a complaint made to it by Dr Babu K.V., a Kerala-based ophthalmologist, who claimed advertisements on various products by Patanjali were objectionable. There was no response from Divya Pharmacy to them.
Yet another notice was sent to the firm in January 2023, following one more mail from Ayush ministry that was based on a complaint against dissemination of objectionable advertisements of the medicines produced by Divya Pharmacy.
When the SLA got a similar response from the firm, reiterating the Bombay HC order on Rule 170, it sought a clarification from the central ministry in the same month. Subsequently, the ministry informed the SLA in February 2023 that there was no stay of the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 and urged him to launch an investigation.
However, this led to another round of back-and-forth of letters. The SLA wrote to the drug inspector, who in turn sought an explanation from Divya Pharmacy, which in reply repeated the same contention as it did on past occasions and denied any contravention of the law.
When the company’s response was sent to the Ayush ministry, the latter in May 2023 wrote a terse note to the SLA, reminding it that under the 1954 law, the authority to implement the legislation rested with the state licensing department.
Thereafter, between June and March 2024, three more rounds of letters were exchanged between SLA, Divya Pharmacy and the Ayush ministry. The affidavit reveals the contents of these letters were more or less the same with Divya Pharmacy providing a similar explanation as it did in the past.
According to the affidavit, the SLA issued a warning to Divya Pharmacy on 12 March, 2024, after it learnt about the top court’s 27 February, 2024 order.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also read: Patanjali ad case saw flouting of rules. India needs to fix its Magic Remedies Act