“They have been sitting on the communication from the Ayush Ministry and my complaints for the past two years,” he said.The RTI activist had written to the Prime Minister’s Office on January 15 regarding repeated infringements of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 by Patanjali Ayurved after he failed to get any response and appropriate action against the company from either the DrugsController General of India, under the Union Health Ministry, Ayush Ministry, and the Uttarakhand SLA.The PMO had then directed the Ayush ministry on January 24 for appropriate action.Following the direction from the PMO, the Ayush ministry directed the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, that “since the subject matter pertains to continuous violations of DMR (OA) Act, 1954, by Divya Pharmacy, it comes under the jurisdiction of the State Licensing Authority, Uttarakhand.”However, the answer from the state authorities was on similar lines, added Dr Babu.“The Uttarakhand SLA is not taking any action even after repeated communications and the numerous contravention of the Magic Remedies Act by Patanjali Ayurveda. What is shocking is their inaction even after the communication from the PMO and the clear directions from the Supreme Court in this matter,” added Dr Babu.The Supreme Court has pulled up Ramdev’s Patanjali several times for its misleading advertisements. On February 27, the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice against Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna for publishing advertisements of products violating the DMR (OA) Act, 1954, despite an undertaking given to the court in November last year.The Supreme Court said the “entire country was being taken for a ride” through misleading advertisements. The case is now being heard on March 19.In November 2023, the apex court warned Patanjali that it would be fined Rs 1 crore if a false claim is made that its products can “cure” certain diseases. Despite the apex court’s rap, Patanjali published misleading ads in two broadly circulated regional newspapers on December 4 last year.The DMR (OA) 1954 prohibits the advertisement of certain drugs to treat certain diseases and disorders. It states that “no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement referring to any drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that drug for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any diseases, disorder or condition.”
Source link
