New Delhi: An Interdisciplinary Technical Review Committee (ITRC) set up under the Union Ayush Ministry had recommended Coronil as a supporting medicine in COVID-19 management and not as a cure, an affidavit filed by the central government in the Supreme Court shows.
In its affidavit, the Ayush ministry said that the committee, had, in January 2021, advised the State Licensing Authority (SLA) of Uttarakhand to issue a licence to Divya Pharmacy — the outlet that manufactures medicines for Patanjali — to advocate the use of Coronil for supportive care. This step was taken more than six months after Patanjali had launched Coronil, claiming its consumption would lead to 100 percent recovery from the disease in 3-4 days.
The ministry’s affidavit came in response to the Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) petition in which it has raised concerns over Patanjali’s advertisements of certain drugs, which it claims are in the teeth of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954.
It also came over a month after the court imposed a temporary ban on Patanjali Ayurved from advertising or branding certain products.
In its affidavit, the Ayush ministry said it had issued a notice to Patanjali immediately after Coronil was introduced in the market in June 2020 — even before the ITRC advisory.
According to the affidavit, a ministry secretary sent two messages to Patanjali — one through a letter and the other by mail — asking it to refrain from marketing the medicine as a COVID-19 cure.
However, at the same time, the ministry also questioned IMA’s petition saying it wasn’t maintainable.
The ministry, the affidavit says, encourages the utilisation of each “healthcare system for (the) betterment of the overall health of its citizens in a holistic manner”. It also faulted the IMA for “denigrating a system of medicine”, saying the association lacks a “complete understanding of other systems of medicines.
Also Read: Before Supreme Court order, Kerala doctor Babu KV led the fight against Patanjali’s misleading ads
‘Onus on SLA’ — what Ayush ministry said in affidavit
The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954, prohibits publishing advertisements of drugs for specific diseases. These include drugs promoting “procurement of miscarriage in women or prevention of conception in women or maintenance or improvement of individual’s capacity for sexual pleasure, correction of menstrual disorder in women,” amongst others.
The first conviction under the law can lead to six months of jail, a fine, or both. The second conviction, on the other hand, attracts a jail term of a year.
In its 42-page affidavit, the Union Ayush ministry details the government’s measures for regulating Ayurveda, Unani, and Siddha drugs. It also outlines the distinct roles played by the Centre and SLAs, adding under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the latter is vested with the power to issue licenses to manufacturers for producing alternative therapy drugs.
The 1954 law also puts the onus on the SLA to take action against misleading advertisements by such manufacturers, the affidavit says.
According to the ministry, a second letter was sent to Patanjali on 23 July, 2020, to remind the company that its advertisements for medicines should adhere to the 1954 law.
In addition to Ayush, another central body, the National Pharmacovigilance Centre (NPC), had reported Patanjali thrice in 2022 for misleading advertisements for 13 of its drugs, the affidavit shows.
In turn, the SLA forwarded to the ministry a response it had received from Divya Pharmacy in May 2023 — over a year after the Centre advised action against Patanjali.
It was only on 12 March this year that SLA informed Ayush about issuing a warning to Divya Pharmacy, the affidavit says. This communication followed the ministry’s letter to the SLA on 8 March asking for an update on the action taken on its recommendations.
Significantly, this communication occurred in the middle of the Supreme Court’s hearings of IMA’s petition.
Taking note of the affidavit Tuesday, a division bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah slammed the Centre for not acting under the 1954 law.
Noting that the central government’s affidavit clearly says that Patanjali’s product Coronil isn’t backed by evidence, the bench wondered why it did not make this public knowledge.
“We are wondering why the Union of India chose to keep their eyes shut,” the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre. Justice Amanullah quipped: “You have to also explain why the action was not taken against the states”.
Meanwhile, Mehta targeted IMA for its stand that allopathy cannot be criticised. “I say it can be,” it said.
To this, the bench responded saying it had already praised Patanjali for doing good work in the field of yoga.
While going through the Ayush ministry’s affidavit, the bench said that it shows the SLA is “not discharging its duty”, and directed the department to become a party in the case and appear before it on 10 April — the next date of hearing.
The bench also refused to accept apologies from Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali, who were asked to appear before it. Calling their apologies perfunctory, the bench gave them another week to file a “better affidavit”.