IMA had petitioned the Supreme Court to direct Patanjali to halt its smear campaign against the coronavirus vaccination drive and modern medicine.
The judges on Tuesday limited their hearing to the actions of Patanjali, who is accused of violating the Narcotic Drugs and Magical Therapy Act, which prohibits the promotion of medicines intended to treat serious conditions such as blood pressure and heart disease. He said it was not something that would be done.
“While the petitioner (association) is pointing the finger at the respondent (Patanjali), other fingers are also pointing at you,” the newspaper quoted the lawyer appearing for IMA as saying.
Justice Kohli said IMA members were busy recommending medicines to patients “both on the right and in the centre.” “What you are doing to rein in members of the association in the allopathic field is a question we also need to ask you. This is not just about having FMCG. We have you and your members prescribing medications based on recommendations that require some consideration…If that’s happening, why shouldn’t we beam at you?” Judge Kohli asked.
The judges said IMA also needed to “clean up its internal affairs.” “Several complaints have been received regarding IMA’s alleged unethical conduct. Abuse of its position in recommending very expensive drugs… recommending unrelated drugs for valuable consideration. How many times have you been notified and what action have you taken against it?” the court asked IMA’s lawyer and senior advocate PS Patwalia, who said he would return with the necessary information in the next hearing. promised.
Also read: There was a violation of rules in the Patanjali advertising case.India needs to fix magic cures
The court directed the Center to inform what action it had taken against FMCG companies for “false advertising” of products such as food for infants, children and the elderly, and set out the scope of the hearing. expanded.
“We have to make it clear that we are not here for any particular political party, any particular institution, or any particular authority. This is a PIL (public interest litigation) and we want consumers to know how It is in the greater interest of the average consumer to know where it is headed, how and why it is being misunderstood, and what government agencies are doing to prevent its misuse.” the judges said.
Indirectly referring to the recent controversy surrounding companies manufacturing baby food products, the court stated: We understand that this issue is currently under the union’s watch, but the union will need to say something to us about it. ”
The judges said they couldn’t take the general public on board, saying, “These are children, babies… If that’s what’s happening, the Union of India needs to rejuvenate itself and bring it under your jurisdiction.” Licensing authorities in a given state need to act as well,” he added. I can’t just shrug my shoulders and say I took my complaint to the state authorities and they should do what they have to do. ”
Regarding the contempt case against Patanjali, the Supreme Court was informed that on Monday, the group published advertisements in 67 newspapers seeking unconditional apology for their lapses.
Since the advertisement was not recorded, the court granted an additional week for recording. The court said it wanted to physically check whether the ad was the same size as an ad published by the group.
(Edited by Tikri Basu)
Please also read: Why Ramdev’s legal setback in the Patanjali advertising case is unlikely to shake the Bharatiya Janata Party’s support for him
View full article
