The Supreme Court criticized the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) for its prolonged inaction against Patanjali Ayurved. The Court noted that the SLA only took action against Patanjali’s misleading advertisements after the Supreme Court’s intervention.
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned the SLA’s delayed response and its failure to conduct proper inspections as ordered by higher authorities. The Court pointed out that the SLA only seemed to act quickly after the Court’s intervention.
The SLA submitted an affidavit apologizing for its inaction and noted that it filed a criminal complaint against Patanjali Ayurved and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
The Supreme Court expressed frustration with the SLA’s affidavit, stating it lacked details on prior actions taken and failed to support claims of vigilance. The Court found the affidavit’s inclusion of a paragraph from a previous affidavit, asserting vigilance, indicative of a casual approach.
The Court pressed the SLA officer, Dr Swastik Suresh, on whether any on-site inspections were conducted and demanded the presentation of inspection reports.
Ultimately, the Court acknowledged that the SLA only took action after significant delays and direct intervention by the Court. It granted the authorities permission to file additional affidavits and scheduled the next hearing for May 14.
The case concerns a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against an alleged smear campaign by Patanjali and its founders against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine. In a previous hearing, the Supreme Court threatened to impose substantial fines on Patanjali for false advertising claims.
