Supreme Court Today Stayed As per the Central Government Notification dated July 1, 2024, [Article170oftheDrugsandCosmeticsRules1945[1945年医薬品化粧品規則第170条 Omitted.
Bench Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta The Court noted that this omission is contrary to its order of May 7, 2024 and issued an order, the record of which reads as follows:
“The affidavit filed by the Ministry of Ayush has enclosed a notification issued on 1 July 2024, pursuant to which it has stated that the Drugs (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2024 has been notified and Rule 170 of the Drugs Rules has been omitted… Para 12 of the affidavit further states that pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court vide its gazette notification dated 2 February 2024 to expedite the notification procedure (vide its order dated 7 May 2024), the Ministry of Ayush has vide its gazette notification dated 2 July 2024, notifying the omission of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and related forms…In our opinion, the said notice is contrary to the order passed by this Court dated 07.05.2024. It was observed therein that instead of revoking the letter dated 29.08.2023 for reasons best known to the Ministry, a notification dated 01.07.2024 was issued deleting Rule 170 from the Drugs Rules which is contrary to the very directions issued by this Court. Till further orders, the effect of the notification dated 1 July 2024 omitting Rule 170 is suspended. In other words, Rule 170 will remain on the statute book until further orders are passed.“
It may be recalled that during the hearing of the Patanjali contempt case in April, two major issues emerged, one of which was related to the stay of proceedings under Rule 170 by the Ayush Ministry.
Rule 170 prohibits advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs without the approval of the licensing authority. However, on August 29, 2023, the Ministry of Ayurveda sent letters to all State/Union Territory Licensing Authorities and AYUSH Drug Controllers directing them not to initiate/take any action under Rule 170 in view of the recommendation of the Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) to remove the provision. The final notification for removal of the rule was yet to be published at that time.
In April, the Supreme Court letter It was issued by the Ministry of AYUSH. On May 7, the coalition informed the court that it would “immediately” withdraw the impugned letter.
However, today the court observed that instead of revoking the letter, the central government issued a notification stating that Rule 170 will be deleted with effect from July 1, 2024. Further, an affidavit was filed to show that the same was done in compliance with the court’s orders.
As the Union’s action was contrary to the order of the Court, the effect of the notification dated July 1, 2024 was stayed till further orders.
Courtroom interaction
J Kohli (to ASG KM Nataraj): How did you issue the July 1, 2024 notification?
Tourism Australia: It has been withdrawn
J. Kohli: No, you’re ignoring rule 170.
Tourism Australia: That’s what we pointed out
J. Kohli: No, we are not of the same mind
J. Mehta: That was not the intention. (The intention was) to withdraw the letter, not the rules…
J. Kohli: It is the rules that have been rescinded, not the documents. This notice is contrary to the order of this court. How do you feel about this decision?
Tourism Australia: This judgment follows the order of this court itself. Paragraph 12 points out that…
J. Mehta: The intention was to enforce Rule 170. In view of this omission, any manufacturer could advertise their medicines without penalty, which was the very subject…
Amicus Shadan Farasat: The affidavit states that it was in accordance with your orders.
J. Kohli: Perhaps the prefix “non” was removed due to a typo.
Tourism Australia: I will submit an affidavit
J. Kohli: This is totally unacceptable. There is no affidavit. We are dismissing your notice here and now. Why would you explain this in an affidavit? We are truly surprised. You are violating our orders. This is unwelcome.
Tourism Australia: Let me explain
J. Kohli: We will keep it, you can explain it
Present: Amici and Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, ASG KM Nataraj (for the Coalition)
Case Name: Indian Medical Association v. Government of India | WP(C) No. 645/2022
