On Patanjali misleading ads case, Supreme Court tough questions for centre

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court had some tough questions for the Center and the Indian Medical Association on Tuesday as it continued a marathon hearing on the IMA’s claim of misleading advertisements of Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurved, including those of Coronil, a preparation presented as a “cure” for COVID. -19.

To begin with, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah wanted to know why the government had omitted Rule 170 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, or DMR, which prohibits advertisements of medicines as products with capabilities” magical”.

Rule 170 had been inserted in the DMR in 2018 to check claims made by companies, including Patanjali, that sell Ayurvedic preparations. In August last year, however, the Ministry of AYUSH made a surprising U-turn, based on the inputs of a special technical board, and recommended its omission.

The authorities were further told not to take any action under this rule.

Specifically, Rule 170 required companies manufacturing Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicinal preparations to obtain clearances from the state licensing authority before publishing advertisements.

The furious Supreme Court, which has in recent weeks criticized Ramdev and Patanjali co-founder Acharya Balakrishna over the size and content of the apology for running misleading ads, wanted to know why the Center backed down, noting that “it seems the authorities were busy looking at income.”

“AYUSH ministry issued letter to all states on rule 170… and now you want to withdraw it? State minister submitted in Parliament that you have taken action against these ads… and now you say that won’t rule 170 take effect?” asked the court in the center. “Can you suspend the exercise of a law when it is in power? Isn’t that a colorful exercise of power and a violation of the law?”

READ | “Apology the same size as the ads?” The Supreme Court Grills Ramdev

“You (the center) decided to change your stand. The rule was to post ads for you… and now (you) say that the ad doesn’t need to be contrasted?” Justice Kohli snapped, observing the petitioner – the Indian Medical Association – “…you should have pushed the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (also)”.

“It appears that the authorities were very busy looking at the income,” the court said.

The court also referred to a time when one of Patanjali’s advertisements appeared on a television news channel even as the anchor was reporting on the trial. “What a situation!” Justice Amanullah stated, while his colleague pointed to recent concerns over the safety of popular consumer products and asked, “You (the Center) identified the flaws and told the states…but what Did you do it on your own?”

“The center should also inform us about the steps related to other FMCGs…,” Justice Amanullah said.

The court’s observations on this point came after authorities in Hong Kong and Singapore pointed to the presence of ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing compound, in four products of two globally popular spice brands, Everest and MDH. The center has now ordered the testing of all these products.

READ | The center acts after the withdrawal of spice brands in Hong Kong, Singapore

Earlier this month, Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, added excess sugar to baby food products, in violation of international guidelines aimed at preventing obesity and chronic diseases. These violations were found only in Asian, African and Latin American countries.

READ | Nestlé adds 3g of sugar to Cerelac sold in India: report

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court not only cast its net on the Centre, but also questioned the original petitioner, the IMA, over the possible laxity in standards for advertisements of allopathic medical products.

“State what the advertising board (standards) did to counter these ads and the members who endorsed these products. We’re not (now) just looking at respondents…we’re looking at children, babies, women. No one can be taken to take a walk…”

“We are putting questions to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as co-responsible. State licensing authorities across the country will also be added as parties and they must also answer certain questions…” he said. said the court sternly. .

The court also removed the IMA and said the medical body “must put its own house in order with regard to alleged unethical acts… where expensive and unnecessary medicines are prescribed”.

The court reminded the IMA – as children across the country receive – that by pointing the finger at Patanjali, the other four were pointing at them.

“Whenever there is misuse of position by the petitioner association to prescribe expensive medicines and the line of treatment needs closer examination…” the court said.

The next hearing in this case will be next week.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest NDTV updates in your chat.