After Patanjali, state government, IMA comes under Supreme Court's scanner

"When you want to move, you move like lightning! And when you don't want to, you don't," the Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) after it suspended manufacturing licences for 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Divya Pharmacy.

"Long and short is that when you want to move, you move like lightning! And when you don't want to, you don't. In three days flat, you have done all that you needed to do! But you should have done all that much earlier," Justice Hima Kohli said.

The court also took exception to comments reportedly made by Indian Medical Association (IMA) President RV Asokan in an interview about the court’s criticism of practices of private doctors. The Supreme Court had earlier said that IMA needs to 'put its house in order'.

The media interview of Asokan was brought to the attention of a Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali Ayurved. The court has asked for the said interview to be put on record in the next hearing.

“After all this, you do this? The IMA has not covered itself with glory… How can you decide which way we (Supreme Court) should go?” Justice Hima Kohli asked the IMA lawyers.

The court also asked the Uttarakhand SLA for inaction against Patanjali Ayurved for years together. It also asked the Centre to give an explanation for its inaction.

"Within 7-8 days you did all that was supposed to be done. How do you explain inaction for years? Why violation of orders of superior authorities to conduct inspection. What is your stand to assist the court as counsel? Why for six years, everything was in limbo?" the Court asked.

The SLA said it had filed an affidavit earlier this week apologising for its earlier inaction and also stated that it has filed a criminal complaint against Patanjali Ayurved and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.

The Court said the affidavit filed by the SLA did not contain details of actions taken previously and that its claims of being vigilant were not backed up.

"It appears from affidavits that authorities got activated to take action in accordance with the law only after the Court order of April 10. Be that as it may, as requested by counsel, additional affidavits are permitted to be filed within 10 days. List on May 14," the order said.

The court, however, said there has been a 'marked improvement' in the nature of the apology published by Patanjali in newspapers but the original copies of the same had still not been filed.

"Is the apology the same size as your advertisements?" the Supreme Court had asked Patanjali Ayurved last Tuesday in the hearing against the company over the publication of misleading advertisements.

The next day, the company published a new apology in newspapers, which was ‘bigger’ than the last one.

The court has now given Patanjali time to file (without affidavit) original copies of only those pages of newspapers on which the public apology has been published.

"There has been a marked improvement from the last...two things, (earlier) it was small and there was only Patanjali...no names...now names have come. Language is adequate. It is a marked improvement. We appreciate that. Now finally they (Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna) have understood...that is the benefit of an intelligent counsel assisting the court," Justice Amanullah said.

The matter will again be heard on May 7 and 14.

On November 21, 2023, Patanjali Ayurved co-founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna had assured the court that they would not make any “casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine”.