advertisement
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 30, came down heavily on the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) for "inaction" in the misleading advertising case against Patanjali Ayurved.
The court said that the the state body only "woke up" after repeated orders from the court. This, just a day after the Uttarakhand SLA said that they have revoked the licences of 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its sister concern Divya Pharmacy in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on Monday (April 29).
During the previous hearing of the matter the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had said that the court was dissatisfied with the public apology published by Patanjali Ayurved Limited for violating their undertaking to the court and continuing to publish misleading advertisements.
Examining the public apology submitted to the court, the bench noted that there's been a improvement in the nature of the apology.
They have, however, asked Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to file on record the original pages of each of the newspapers in which the public apology was issued.
Furthermore, the court exempted Ramdev and Balkrishna from personal appearance for the next hearing in the case, which will be held on 17 May.
Action taken so far: According to an affidavit submitted by the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) on 29 April, the manufacturing licenses of 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its sister concern Divya Pharmacy were suspended under Rule 159(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1954, on 15 April.
Further, the affidavit stated that a criminal complaint has been filed against Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkris.
The products whose licenses have been suspended are,
Swasari Gold
Swasari Vati
Bronchom
Swasari Pravahi
Swasari Avaleh
Mukta Vati Extra Power
Lipidom
Bp Grit
Madhugrit
Madhunashini Vati Extra Power
Livamrit Advance
Livogrit
Eyegrit Gold
Patanjali Drishti Eye Drops
The Uttarakhand SLA also tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” to the Supreme Court for any “inadvertent and unintentional” non-compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined