SC reprimands Uttarakhand licensing body for inaction in Patanjali case
What's the story
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed dissatisfaction with the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority's delay in addressing the deceptive advertising case of Patanjali. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah criticized the authority for only taking action after the court's directive on April 10. The bench reportedly stated, "Be honest to court if you want sympathy and compassion. Our main concern is whether you took action in accordance with law."
Context
Why does this story matter?
The top court is hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali against modern systems of medicine. On February 27, the SC directed Patanjali to immediately halt all electronic and print advertisements containing "misleading information" about its products. This came after the court's warning to Patanjali in November 2023 against making "misleading" claims in advertisements.
Legal compliance
Court questions licensing authority's adherence to legal procedures
The Supreme Court emphasized its primary concern is whether the licensing authority followed legal procedures in handling the Patanjali misleading advertisements case. The court expressed, "It appears Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority acted only after apex court's April 10 order." The hearing has been scheduled for May 14. Additionally, the court requested original newspaper pages featuring public apologies issued by Patanjali representatives Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.
License suspension
Uttarakhand government suspends licenses for Patanjali products
According to reports on Monday, the Uttarakhand government has suspended licenses for 14 items produced by Patanjali's Divya Pharmacy. This suspension order was implemented earlier this month. The list of suspended products includes Swasari Gold, Swasari Vati, Bronchom, Swasari Pravahi, and others. During a previous hearing on April 10, the Supreme Court had also reprimanded the licensing authority for its inaction, warning that it would not ignore the issue as it seemed the body had "kept its eyes shut deliberately."
On April 23
'Was apology same size as your ads': SC slams Patanjali
Last week, the apex court also raised questions over the "microscopic" size of Patanjali Ayurved's public apology advertisements issued in newspapers. During a hearing of the "misleading" ads case asked if the "apology was the same size as its advertisements." "We want to see that when you issue an ad it does not mean we have to see it by a microscope. It is not meant to be on paper but also read," stated the SC.