Patanjali Ayurveda was co-founded by Baba Ramdev in 2006 (File).
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued its marathon hearing into IMA’s claims regarding misleading advertisements by Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurveda, including an ad for Coronil promoted as a “cure” for the coronavirus. He asked some tough questions of the Center and the Indian Medical Association. -19.
First, Justices Hima Kohli and Asanuddin Amanullah asked why the government removed Regulation 170 from the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Offensive Advertisements) Act (DMR), which prohibits advertising of medicines as products with “magical” abilities. I wanted to know if I had omitted it.
Rule 170 had been inserted in the DMR in 2018 to check the claims of companies selling Ayurvedic preparations, including Patanjali. But in August last year, the AYUSH Ministry took a surprising turn and recommended its omission based on the opinion of a special expert committee.
Additionally, authorities were instructed not to take any action based on this rule.
Specifically, Rule 170 required companies manufacturing Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines to obtain permission from state licensing authorities before advertising.
The Supreme Court, which has been slamming Ramdev and Patanjali co-founder Acharya Balakrishna for the past few weeks over the scale and content of their apology for misleading advertisements, is furious and wants to know why the Center withdrew. “The authorities appear to have been busy considering the issue,” he said. Revenue”.
“The Ministry of AYUSH has issued letters to all states regarding Rule 170… And now you want to withdraw (it)? The Minister of State has submitted to Parliament that action has been taken against such advertisements. …and now you’re saying Rule 170 won’t be rescinded.” Will that affect you? ” the court asked the Center. “Can you withhold the law when you’re in power? Isn’t that a color-coded exercise of power and a violation of the law?”
Read | “Is an apology the same size as an advertisement?” Supreme Court grills Ramdev
“You (the Center) decided to change your position. The rule was that you advertised… and now (you) say you don’t need to check the advertisements?” Justice Kohli said. He harshly told the petitioner, the Indian Medical Association, that it “should have requested the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (as well).”
“The authorities appear to have been busy investigating his income,” the court said.
The court also noted the moment one of Patanjali’s advertisements was featured on a television news channel while the anchor was reporting on the trial. “What a situation!” Responding to a question from a colleague who pointed out recent concerns over the safety of popular FMCG products, Justice Amanullah said, “You (Centre) have identified the fault lines and communicated them to the states… But what did you do with yourself?”
“The Center should also tell us about measures related to other FMCG products…” Justice Amanullah said.
The court’s opinion in this regard comes after authorities in Hong Kong and Singapore have raised red flags over four products from two globally popular spice brands, Everest and MDH, for containing the carcinogenic compound ethylene oxide. It was done later. The Center has now ordered testing of all such products.
Read | Center takes action after spice brands are recalled in Hong Kong and Singapore
Earlier this month, Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, was found to be adding too much sugar to its baby food products, in violation of international guidelines aimed at preventing obesity and chronic diseases. These violations occurred only in countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Read | Nestlé adds 3 grams of sugar to Cerelac sold in India: report
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court not only targeted the Center, but also questioned the first petitioner, the IMA, for potentially lax advertising standards for allopathic medicines.
“Please point out what the Advertising (Standards) Council has done to counter such advertising and members who supported such products. We are not (currently) looking only at respondents. No…we’re looking at children, babies, women. Nobody can do that.”
“We have asked questions to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as joint respondents. State licensing authorities across the country have also been added as parties and they will also have to answer certain questions…” the court said sternly . .
The court also struck down the IMA, stating that medical institutions “need to self-regulate with regard to alleged unethical practices in which expensive and unnecessary drugs are prescribed.”
As children across the country were reprimanded, the court reminded the IMA that by pointing the finger at Patanjali, the other four were also pointing the finger at them.
“Whenever the petitioner-association misuses its position to prescribe expensive medicines, the treatment policy needs to be scrutinized…,” the court said.
The next hearing in the case will take place next week.
NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channel. Click on the link Get all the latest updates from NDTV on Chat.
