Ayush ministry makes a U-turn on motion in opposition to Ramdev’s pharmacy for deceptive adverts

Express News Service

NEW DELHI: The Ayush ministry has made a U-turn on deceptive ads of Ayush merchandise contradicting its stand and the minister’s assertion in Parliament, an RTI reply has revealed.

After Kannur-based ophthalmologist Dr Okay V Babu complained in opposition to doubtful and deceptive ads by Baba Ramdev’s Haridwar-based Patanjali Ayurved, the Ayush ministry requested Uttarakhand licensing authority to take motion.

Instead of taking motion, the state licensing authority cited Rule 170 beneath the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1945, which they stated prevented them from penalising the Patanjali group’s Divya Pharmacy and claimed the supply’s software was subjudice and pending earlier than the Mumbai High Court.

Despite understanding that motion might be taken beneath the Magic Remedies Act, the Ayush ministry didn’t appropriate the state licensing authority, stated Babu.

In its reply to Babu on November 22, the ministry reiterated the identical stand taken by the state licensing authority, and stated, “the matter is under sub judice and pending” earlier than the Mumbai High Court and the “necessary action may be taken subject to the final decision of the court.”

The ministry didn’t appropriate the state authority that motion might be taken beneath Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) 1954, 3 (d) and Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1945, 106 (1). Under these sections, ads of medication for 54 and 51 ailments which can be beneath the schedule are prohibited. 

The criticism was in opposition to an commercial claiming that Divya Pharmacy’s Lipidom may scale back ldl cholesterol.

“In my complaint in February this year, I had sought action against the misleading advertisement under Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) 1954. I made no complaint under Rule 170. They knowingly cited Rule 170, which they knew could not be used, and flagged it to state that the matter is sub-judice,” Babu advised The New Indian Express.

“The Drug Policy Section of the Ministry of AYUSH is misinterpreting the stay on Rule 170, which was added just to reinforce the existing Acts, as a stay on the whole of DMR (OA) 1954 section 3(d) and D & C Act 1945, section 106(1), which prohibits the advertisements of the drugs under schedule.”

Babu stated he has now written to the Ayush minister Sarbananda Sonowal for “wrong interpretation of the sub-judice nature of Rule 170 of D & C Rules 1945, thereby exonerating the violators of DMR (OA) 1954” and requested him to intervene on the matter.

The RTI activist stated the U-turn by the ministry is contradictory to the assertion of the minister within the Parliament in March 2022 and their communications to the state licensing authority in April after which in September, asking them to provoke motion in opposition to Divya Pharmacy beneath DMR (OA) 1954.

Even the file notings of the Ayush ministry point out that although Rule 170 is subjudice, motion might be taken beneath DMR (OA) 1954.

“If the present position of the Ministry of Ayush, which is contradictory to the rules of the land, is implemented, it will lead to flooding of the media with misleading advertisements and will prove a public health disaster,” Babu added.

Sonowal within the parliament had stated that “the protocol or pointers are in pressure to limit Ayush merchandise of medicinal use with doubtful claims and for promoting sure medicines beneath medical supervision.”

“The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and Rules there beneath embody the provisions for prohibition of deceptive ads and exaggerated claims of medication and medicinal substances, together with Ayush medicines and for the penalty to be imposed on the defaulters,” he had stated within the Rajya Sabha on March 22.

“The State/UT Governments are empowered to enforce the legal provisions under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and rules made thereunder,” he added.

The minister had additionally stated that media regulators have additionally been approached to stop the publication of inappropriate ads selling sale of Ayurvedic and different such medicines in public curiosity.

Despite the minister’s assertion, Patanjali Ayurved merchandise proceed to promote in newspapers, Babu stated.

NEW DELHI: The Ayush ministry has made a U-turn on deceptive ads of Ayush merchandise contradicting its stand and the minister’s assertion in Parliament, an RTI reply has revealed.

After Kannur-based ophthalmologist Dr Okay V Babu complained in opposition to doubtful and deceptive ads by Baba Ramdev’s Haridwar-based Patanjali Ayurved, the Ayush ministry requested Uttarakhand licensing authority to take motion.

Instead of taking motion, the state licensing authority cited Rule 170 beneath the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1945, which they stated prevented them from penalising the Patanjali group’s Divya Pharmacy and claimed the supply’s software was subjudice and pending earlier than the Mumbai High Court.

Despite understanding that motion might be taken beneath the Magic Remedies Act, the Ayush ministry didn’t appropriate the state licensing authority, stated Babu.

In its reply to Babu on November 22, the ministry reiterated the identical stand taken by the state licensing authority, and stated, “the matter is under sub judice and pending” earlier than the Mumbai High Court and the “necessary action may be taken subject to the final decision of the court.”

The ministry didn’t appropriate the state authority that motion might be taken beneath Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) 1954, 3 (d) and Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1945, 106 (1). Under these sections, ads of medication for 54 and 51 ailments which can be beneath the schedule are prohibited. 

The criticism was in opposition to an commercial claiming that Divya Pharmacy’s Lipidom may scale back ldl cholesterol.

“In my complaint in February this year, I had sought action against the misleading advertisement under Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) 1954. I made no complaint under Rule 170. They knowingly cited Rule 170, which they knew could not be used, and flagged it to state that the matter is sub-judice,” Babu advised The New Indian Express.

“The Drug Policy Section of the Ministry of AYUSH is misinterpreting the stay on Rule 170, which was added just to reinforce the existing Acts, as a stay on the whole of DMR (OA) 1954 section 3(d) and D & C Act 1945, section 106(1), which prohibits the advertisements of the drugs under schedule.”

Babu stated he has now written to the Ayush minister Sarbananda Sonowal for “wrong interpretation of the sub-judice nature of Rule 170 of D & C Rules 1945, thereby exonerating the violators of DMR (OA) 1954” and requested him to intervene on the matter.

The RTI activist stated the U-turn by the ministry is contradictory to the assertion of the minister within the Parliament in March 2022 and their communications to the state licensing authority in April after which in September, asking them to provoke motion in opposition to Divya Pharmacy beneath DMR (OA) 1954.

Even the file notings of the Ayush ministry point out that although Rule 170 is subjudice, motion might be taken beneath DMR (OA) 1954.

“If the present position of the Ministry of Ayush, which is contradictory to the rules of the land, is implemented, it will lead to flooding of the media with misleading advertisements and will prove a public health disaster,” Babu added.

Sonowal within the parliament had stated that “the protocol or pointers are in pressure to limit Ayush merchandise of medicinal use with doubtful claims and for promoting sure medicines beneath medical supervision.”

“The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and Rules there beneath embody the provisions for prohibition of deceptive ads and exaggerated claims of medication and medicinal substances, together with Ayush medicines and for the penalty to be imposed on the defaulters,” he had stated within the Rajya Sabha on March 22.

“The State/UT Governments are empowered to enforce the legal provisions under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and rules made thereunder,” he added.

The minister had additionally stated that media regulators have additionally been approached to stop the publication of inappropriate ads selling sale of Ayurvedic and different such medicines in public curiosity.

Despite the minister’s assertion, Patanjali Ayurved merchandise proceed to promote in newspapers, Babu stated.