Patanjali case: Supreme Court pulls up Uttarakhand Licensing Authority for years of inaction against misleading advertisements

The Supreme Court today criticized the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) for failing to take action against Patanjali Ayurved for years.

A bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah stated that the state licensing authority chose to act against Patanjali’s misleading advertisements only after the top court passed restrictions and made strong observations in this regard.

The court mentioned that the authority did everything it was supposed to do within seven to eight days and asked SLA to explain its years of inaction. The court wondered why there was a violation of orders from higher authorities to conduct inspections. Further, the position of the authority was asked to assist the court as counsel, and why was everything in limbo for six years?

Earlier on Saturday, the SLA had filed an affidavit apologizing for its earlier inaction and stating that it had filed a criminal complaint against Patanjali Ayurved and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertising) Act.

During today’s hearing, Justice Kohli observed that the long and short of it is that when the authority wants to move, they move like lightning! And if they don’t want to, they won’t. She added that the SLA did everything it needed to do in three days! However, they should have done that much earlier.

Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the SLA, explained the details of the action taken and also told the court that the authority has informed the Centre’s AYUSH ministry about the suspension of certain Patanjali products. Subsequently, Justice Amanaullah noted that the concerned authority had now realized its power.

Moreover, the court also came down heavily on SLA’s affidavit stating that it contained no details of actions taken previously and did not support her claims of vigilance. The court was also disappointed to find that the affidavit had reproduced a paragraph from an earlier affidavit stating that the authority had been vigilant. The Apex Court held that this phenomenon reflected the informal nature of the affidavit.

On the claim of being vigilant, the Supreme Court asked SLA official Dr. Swastik Suresh whether on-site inspections were conducted as stated in the affidavit. Judge Amanullah weighed in and asked for the report they were going to inspect. After interacting with the officer, the court said she did not want to upset him.

Judge Amanullah pointed out that the officer made a categorical statement on the affidavit that he conducted an inspection and reported his findings in a letter. The apex court clarified that the officer can be candid in his comments and the court would understand if he is honest.

Successively, the Supreme Court noted that it appeared that the authorities took action with delay and only after they had been taken up by the court. The court then proceeded to include it in its order while granting permission to the authorities to file additional affidavits. The bank scheduled the case for May 14.