The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) for its prolonged inaction against Patanjali Ayurved.
A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that the SLA chose to act against Patanjali’s “misleading” advertisements only after the Supreme Court made stringent comments and observations on the matter, as per reports.
This comes after, Uttarakhand on Monday suspended the manufacturing licenses of 14 products made by Patanjali Ayurved and Divya Pharmacy with immediate effect.
As per the reports, the Court asked, “Within 7-8 days you did all that was supposed to be done. How do you explain inaction for years? Why violation of orders of superior authorities to conduct inspection. What is your stand to assist the court as counsel. Why for six years, everything was in limbo?” the Court asked.
The Court noted that the SLA realised its powers only following the Court’s reprimand.
Earlier this week, the SLA submitted an affidavit apologising for its previous inactivity. Additionally, it stated that it has lodged a criminal complaint against Patanjali Ayurved and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
“Long and short is that when you want to move, you move like lightning! And when you don’t want to you don’t…In three days flat you have done all that you needed to do! But you should have done all that much earlier,” Justice Kohli said.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing SLA, explained the details of actions taken to the Court and told that the Central Government’s Ayush Ministry has been informed about the suspension of certain Patanjali products.
Justice Amanaullah said, “Now he (concerned authority) realises his power. In one day, he realises his power.”
The Court also criticised the affidavit filed by the SLA for lacking details on previous actions taken and for its claims of being vigilant were not backed up.
“You knew we had words to say about your officers, your predecessors. In the light of all that can you say that you “have been vigilant in your duties” (in para 21 of the affidavit),” the Court asked.
The Court inquired about the activities of an SLA officer who held the position for four years and three months, seeking clarification on how he utilised his tenure in the role. The Court also inquired about the vigilance claims and questioned SLA officer Dr. Swastik Suresh regarding whether any site inspections had been carried out.
Justice Amanullah asked, “Where is your report, that you went and did the inspection. We are making last query to you, categorical.”
After an interaction with the officer, the Court expressed its intention not to cause him any distress. Justice Amanullah observed that the officer had made a categorical statement on affidavit that he carried out an inspection and conveyed his findings in a letter.
Ultimately, the Court noted that it seemed the authorities acted with a delay, responding only after being prompted by the Court. The Court duly noted this in its order, allowing the authorities to submit additional affidavits.
As per reports, the order stated, “It appears from affidavits that authorities got activated to take action in accordance of law only after Court order of April 10. Be that as it may, as requested by counsel, additional affidavits permitted to be filed within 10 days.”
The next hearing for the case is scheduled for May 14.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) regarding a purported smear campaign by Patanjali and its founders Ramdev and Balkrishna, against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.
