Act Does Not Contemplate a Warning in the Teeth of Gross Non-compliance: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Patanjali Ayurved’s Apology In Contempt Case
In a significant observation, the Supreme Court has noted that the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, does not envisage merely issuing a warning in cases of gross non-compliance with its provisions. This remark came during the hearing of the writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against the Union of India and others, including Baba Ramdev, concerning the alleged violation of the said Act and Rules.
Legal Point of the Judgement:
The crux of the judgment revolves around the interpretation and enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and its accompanying Rules. Specifically, it addresses the adequacy of actions taken against alleged violations, especially in the context of advertisements and claims made by Divya Pharmacy, associated with Baba Ramdev.
Facts and Issues:
The petition, filed by the Indian Medical Association, challenges certain actions and statements made by Baba Ramdev and Divya Pharmacy, alleging a violation of the Act and Rules regarding objectionable advertisements. The Union of India and the State Licensing Authority, Uttarakhand, are also implicated for their response or lack thereof to these allegations.
Court Assessment in Detail:
Contempt Notice to Baba Ramdev: The Court had issued a notice to Baba Ramdev on the basis of a prima facie opinion of his violation of the Act. However, his response to the notice was still pending.
Non-satisfaction with Respondent No.6’s Reply: The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the reply filed by respondent No.6, though specific details of this were not provided in the order.
Last Opportunity for Affidavits: A final opportunity of one week was given for the filing of affidavits by certain parties, highlighting the Court’s expectation for compliance.
Inaction of State Licensing Authority: The Court pointed out the inaction of the State Licensing Authority, Uttarakhand, in effectively dealing with the issue, noting that merely issuing a warning was insufficient in the face of gross non-compliance.
Impleading State Licensing Authority: Recognizing the crucial role of the State Licensing Authority, the Court decided to implead it as a respondent, emphasizing the need for its accountability.
Awaiting Response from Union of India: The Court noted the detailed affidavit filed by the Ministry of Ayush but highlighted the absence of a crucial document – the response of Divya Pharmacy to the notice by the Union of India.
Decision of the Court: The Court has not yet reached a final decision in this matter. It has scheduled the next hearing for April 10, 2024, where the proposed contemnors, including Baba Ramdev, are required to be present. The case is poised for further deliberations based on the responses and affidavits to be filed in the coming week.
Date of Decision: 02-04-2024
Indian Medical Association & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.
