In a recent court session concerning allegations of misleading advertisements by Patanjali, the Supreme Court queried the Union Government about a peculiar letter sent to State and Union Territory (UT) licensing authorities. This letter, invoking Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, instructed authorities to refrain from taking action against advertisements related to Ayurvedic and Ayush products.
Letter Directive and Rule Omission
Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah referred to an official letter dated August 29, 2023, issued by the Ministry of Ayush to all State/UT Licensing Authorities and Drug Controllers of AYUSH. This communication highlighted the removal of Rule 170 and its related provisions from the 1945 Rules, based on a recommendation by the Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) on May 25, 2023 to omit the provision. The directive instructed Licensing Authorities to halt any action under Rule 170.
Implications of Rule 170
Rule 170 originally prohibited the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani drugs without approval from licensing authorities. Notably, the letter only included approved minutes of the ASUDTAB meeting, with the final notification regarding the omission of Rule 170 pending publication.
Court’s Concerns and Queries
During the hearing, Justice Kohli expressed apprehension to the Union’s counsel by saying -”now in one breath, you are making statements, through not less than the Hon’ble Minister of State in the Parliament, saying that there is ample ground to protect the consumers and initiatives have been taken to tackle advertisements which are misleading in Ayush Drugs and you mention the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act…and you also mention the other Act saying that there is enough provisions that empower the government to act under the Act. And then you amend the Rules.”
Justice Amanullah echoed these concerns, Warning of consequences, “Is it within your jurisdiction or power to say that the law is there but don’t act…till the time it is taken to its logical conclusion? Can you do that? Is it not arbitrary and colorable exercise? Then you are also liable to be proceeded against as abettor to the crime, whoever has made that statement”
Reaction and Future Considerations
The bench highlighted how various parties, including Patanjali, leveraged this letter to secure favorable court orders, such as the stay order from the Bombay High Court. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj assured the court that the Union would not take an adversarial stance and promised to clarify the matter.
The case has been adjourned to May 7 for further deliberation on broader issues. Justice Amanullah emphasized the focus on the Union and the Ministry of Ayush on the next hearing date, stressing the importance of preparedness and clarity on the concerns raised.