Supreme Court Directs Uttarakhand Government To Decide On Suspension Of 14 Patanjali Products Within Two Weeks

Supreme Court Directs Uttarakhand Government To Decide On Suspension Of 14 Patanjali Products Within Two Weeks

During the hearing of the Patanjali misleading ads case, the Supreme Court was informed that the suspension of licenses for 14 Ayurvedic products sold by Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy, previously imposed by the Uttarakhand government, has been lifted. The products are now being sold as the suspension order was cancelled, and a new decision from the state government is pending.

Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta directed the Uttarakhand Government to make a decision on the issue within two weeks and communicate the outcome to the Court.

The petitioner, Indian Medical Association (IMA), reported that the 14 medicines are still available over-the-counter, Despite Patanjali's previous suspension of their Manufacturing in response to the License Suspension.

Patanjali stated that the suspension order was lifted by the state government on July 1 after reviewing a report from a committee formed to address the issue. Following this, the Uttarakhand Government issued a fresh notice to Patanjali on July 8, and Patanjali responded on July 18. However, a final decision is still awaited from the State Government.

In response to these developments, the bench issued the directive.

The IMA had filed a case against Patanjali Ayurved over allegations of "misleading" advertisements and disparaging remarks against allopathic medicine. Patanjali had previously given a court undertaking to cease such statements, but the misleading ads persisted, prompting contempt proceedings against Patanjali, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and Co-Founder Baba Ramdev.

Despite apologies tendered by Patanjali, Balkrishna, and Ramdev, the court rejected them, leading Patanjali to publish a public apology in newspapers alongside the names of the involved parties.

The court had previously criticized the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authorities for their inaction. While some affidavits were filed, others remained pending. The bench had recorded that it would review Uttarakhand's affidavit at the next hearing.

On July 9, the Court reviewed Uttarakhand's affidavit, but the matter was re-listed as IMA requested additional time to file a counter. The Court also considered an additional affidavit from Patanjali and questioned whether intermediaries and social media platforms had removed ads related to the 14 Ayurvedic products.

As no clear responses were provided, the Court instructed Patanjali to submit an affidavit. It also issued notices on various interlocutory applications filed by industry groups, including the Internet and Mobile Association of India, the Association of Radio Operators for India, the Broadband India Forum, and the Indian Newspaper Society, addressing concerns related to advertising industry constraints.

ASG KM Nataraj informed the Court that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had been holding high-level meetings with stakeholders to address these issues.

The bench directed the Ministry to continue these discussions and file an affidavit with recommendations.