Patanjali misleading ads: SC quizzes Uttarakhand body for acting only after its intervention

Appearing for the state government, senior advocate Dhruv Mehta referred to the SLA’s affidavit which said the authority had “suspended… with immediate effect…manufacturing licences for 14… products” of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Divya Pharmacy “for repeated violations” under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945.

Justice Kohli said, “long and short of it is when you want to move, you move like lightning, if you don’t want to move, you drag your feet forever and ever.”

“What you should have done in routine, and we didn’t say three days in accordance with law, You should have done that much earlier,” Justice Kohli added.

Hearing a plea by the IMA accusing Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy of making misleading claims regarding treatments, the bench had on April 10 asked the SLA to explain what action it had taken in the matter.

On Tuesday, Rohatgi told the bench that he had come across a “very disturbing interview given by the President of the IMA” to the Economic Times newspaper. “He says why has the court turned its fingers at us… We have done a great job..,” said the senior counsel adding , “this is direct interference in the course of proceedings in the case,” said Rohatgi.

The bench asked him to bring the interview on record. “This is more serious… be prepared for more serious consequences,” Justice Amanullah told the IMA counsel who said he wasn’t aware of the interview.

The SC also noted that only the newspaper cuttings of the public apologies were filed and said it wanted to see the entire page to know the size of the public notice. The court listed the matter for hearing on May 7.