The Ayush Ministry, representing the Centre, Today (April 10th) filed a detailed affidavit with the Supreme Court, raising serious concerns and criticisms towards Patanjali’s stance on allopathic medicine
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Ayush Ministry, representing the Centre, today filed a detailed affidavit with the Supreme Court, raising serious concerns and criticisms towards Patanjali‘s stance on allopathic medicine. In the affidavit, the Centre sharply rebuked Patanjali for its actions that seemingly undermine the efficacy of allopathic medicines, a mainstay in modern healthcare. This move underscores the government’s broader advocacy for an integrative healthcare system that harmoniously blends traditional and modern medical practices.
The government firmly believes in the principle of patient autonomy, emphasizing that it should be the individual’s prerogative whether to opt for the Ayush system, which includes traditional practices such as Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy, or to seek treatment through allopathic medicine. This stance is reflective of a holistic view towards healthcare, recognizing the value and contributions of diverse medical traditions.
Furthermore, the affidavit addresses the issue of mutual respect among different healthcare systems. The Centre strongly advises against the public denigration of any medical system, advocating for a culture of respect and acknowledgment of the respective strengths and contributions of both traditional and allopathic medicines. This perspective is rooted in the belief that disparaging a particular healthcare approach can be detrimental to public interest and the overall integrity of healthcare provision.
In a more specific allegation, the Centre recalled the episode during the COVID-19 pandemic when Patanjali was explicitly instructed not to promote its product, Coronil, as a cure for COVID-19. This directive was issued pending a thorough examination of the product by the Ayush Ministry to ensure its efficacy and safety. The affidavit highlights that Patanjali’s actions at the time were in direct contravention of the Ministry’s clear guidelines, which stipulate stringent requirements for conducting clinical trials.
This incident underscores the critical importance of regulatory compliance and the ethical responsibility to avoid making premature claims about a medical product’s effectiveness, especially during a public health crisis.
Overall, the Centre’s affidavit ahead of the Patanjali contempt hearing paints a picture of a government deeply invested in promoting an integrative healthcare system. It emphasizes the necessity of mutual respect among different medical traditions and the adherence to regulatory standards to ensure public health and safety.
BACKGROUND
Renowned yoga guru Ramdev made a personal appearance before the esteemed halls of the Supreme Court today, responding to the summons regarding the contentious issue of Patanjali Ayurved’s purported “misleading advertisements”.
The Court, in its previous session, had sternly rebuked Patanjali for its failure to comply with directives and mandated that both Ramdev and the company’s Managing Director, Balkrishna, attend today’s session in person.
Following a rigorous session, an unequivocal apology was tendered to the Court, wherein it was emphasized that Patanjali’s overarching intention revolved around encouraging citizens to embrace healthier lifestyles through the use of its products.
“We are tendering an unconditional apology. He (Baba Ramdev) is here personally present to apologise,”
-the advocate representing Patanjali told the court.
The court, however, called it “lip service” and said that Patanjali-
“owes an apology to the whole nation for their misleading claims.”
“You have broken every barrier… Now you say that you are sorry,”
-the court said.
The Supreme Court also pulled up the Centre.
“Wondering why the Union chose to keep its eyes shut when Patanjali was going to town saying there was no remedies for Covid in allopathy,”
-the court said.
The saga unfolded on February 27th, when the apex court issued a directive, mandating an immediate cessation of all electronic and print advertisements by Patanjali that disseminated “misleading” information regarding its medicinal offerings. Furthermore, the Court castigated the governmental authorities for their apparent inaction, accusing them of turning a blind eye to the issue.
“This is very unfortunate. The government will have to take some immediate action,”
-the bench remarked pointedly.
The genesis of this legal battle traces back to November of the preceding year when the Supreme Court, responding to a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), cautioned Patanjali Ayurved against disseminating “false” and “misleading” claims through its advertisements. The IMA had highlighted numerous commercials allegedly portraying allopathy and medical practitioners in a derogatory light, alleging that certain statements made by firms manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines were aimed at misleading the general public.
These advertisements purportedly insinuated that medical practitioners were succumbing to ailments despite relying on modern medicine, as highlighted by the counsel representing the IMA during the proceedings.
The Supreme Court earlier demanded the personal presence of Baba Ramdev following his non-compliance with a reply requirement regarding a contempt notice. This notice was part of proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved for deceptive advertising practices.
The directive came from a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, which preliminarily found Ramdev and Patanjali’s chairman, Acharya Balkrishna, to likely be infringing upon Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
Despite significant objections from Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, who spoke on behalf of Patanjali, the Court issued its mandate. During the session, Justice Kohli pointedly asked,
“How can you be in the teeth of our orders?”
-emphasizing the importance of compliance from Ramdev and Balkrishna. Despite Rohtagi’s protests, which included the question,
“How does Ramdev come into the picture?”
-the Court remained unyielding, merely stating,
“You are appearing. We will see on the next date. Enough.”
Rohtagi continued, arguing that breaking a law does not constitute contempt of court and insisted that discussions held in open court should be reflected in the official order. Nonetheless, the Court stood firm and required Ramdev’s personal attendance.
During a previous session, the Court had already initiated temporary restrictions against Patanjali’s product advertisements, citing misleading assertions by its founders, Ramdev and Balkrishna. The Supreme Court criticized Patanjali for allegedly exploiting public trust by falsely promoting its products as cures without substantial scientific backing.
Furthermore, the Court reprimanded the Central government for its insufficient action against such deceptive ads, despite a lawsuit filed in 2022 addressing this issue. The directive was clear: Patanjali was to cease disparaging remarks or claims against alternative medical practices.
This sequence of events unfolded as the Bench deliberated over a petition from the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which accuses the renowned yoga instructor and his corporation of conducting a defamation campaign against the COVID-19 immunization initiative and conventional medicine.
Previously, in November, the Supreme Court warned of imposing significant fines—up to Rs 1 crore for each unfounded assertion made in Patanjali’s advertisements that claimed their products could cure various diseases. Justice Amanullah, leading the bench, highlighted that the controversy should not devolve into a mere clash between allopathic (modern) medicine and Ayurvedic approaches.
Ultimately, the top court ordered Patanjali to halt the dissemination of misleading advertisements in the future and to refrain from asserting such claims through media outlets, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive solution to the problem of deceptive medical advertising.
CASE TITLE:
Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Baba Ramdev
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
