Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev
New Delhi: Uttarakhand government’s decision to cancel license 14 Patanjali Ayurvedic Products The incident came in the wake of directions from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) regarding appropriate action on RTI complaints against Baba Ramdev for repeated violations of laws dealing with misleading advertisements of Ayush products.
In addition to suspending the sale of 14 products of Patanjali Ayurveda owned by Baba Ramdev, the state government on April 16 initiated legal proceedings in the Haridwar CJM court for alleged violation of the Narcotics and Magical Remedies Act.
Both the actions by the State Drug Licensing Board were triggered by the PMO’s directive on January 24 directing the Ayush Ministry to take necessary steps.
The PMO’s direction to take action against Ramdev came after RTI activist Dr KV Babu had written a letter to the Prime Minister’s Office on January 15, stating that Patanjali Ayurveda had been arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Magical Therapies (Offensive Advertisements) Act, 1954. This followed after highlighting repeated violations of the law. The PMO instructed authorities to: Please inform Bab about the action taken.
In its response to Babu, the State Drug Licensing Authority (SDLA) in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, confirmed that the PMO had directed it to investigate Babu’s complaint and take appropriate action.
“We would like to inform you that Dr. Babu KV has filed a complaint regarding misleading advertisements of certain medicines manufactured by Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Limited,” the reply dated April 23 said. Dr. Babb received the response on April 30th.
Numerous complaints were received and several warnings, clarifications and notices were issued to the pharmacies involved.
However, based on complaints received by Dr. Babu KV, it has been found that even after warnings/clarifications/notifications, misleading advertisements related to certain medicines are being carried out on orders of the concerned pharmacy and the National Drug Licensing Board. He said he did. under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (SDLA) are ignored.
In response, SADLA co-director Dr Mithilesh Kumar said the state drug licensing authority had taken disciplinary action under Section 159 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for not following directions regarding the drug. A similar response was submitted to the Supreme Court.
“Also, under the provisions of the Drugs and Magical Remedies Act, the drug products manufactured by the said pharmacies for which misleading advertisements have been made by the designated drug inspectors/unani officials of district/Ayurveda and Haldiwar of Haridwar region. Based on this, a case was filed against the pharmacy management in the Haridwar CJM court on April 16, 2024.
Babu, who has relentlessly pursued the case against Ramundev for the past two years, said, “According to the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) has for the first time prosecuted a drug company under the DMR Act.” It seems like there is.” time.
“It is unfortunate that we had to pursue this matter at multiple levels with over 100 RTI applications and complaints.The PMO and SC had to intervene in a matter that should be dealt with on a daily basis by the state authorities. But it will continue.”This will be a landmark decision in the history of this country as it will put an end to illegal and misleading drug advertising.” Babu, who is based in , told this newspaper.
The state government, which had come under severe criticism from the Supreme Court for not taking action despite repeated violations of Patanjali Ayurveda, informed the Supreme Court on April 30 about the steps it had taken. . It also issued an apology and promised not to take any deliberate or intentional action that disobeys the Supreme Court’s orders.
Ramdev and his close aide Balkrishna apologized and went to the Supreme Court themselves to face charges of repeated violations of the law. They also apologized twice in newspapers for misleading advertisements of Ayush products.
The DMR (OA) 1954 prohibits the advertising of certain drugs to treat certain diseases and disorders. It states: “No person shall engage in the publication of any advertisement that refers to a drug in terms that suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that drug for the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, cure, or prevention of disease. “It must not be done.” disorder or condition. ”
