Patanjali Case : Supreme Court Questions Ayush Ministry Letter Asking

During the hearing of the contempt case against Patanjali over the publication of misleading advertisements, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 23) asked the Union Government why a letter was issued to State/UT licensing authorities, restraining action against ads pertaining to Ayurvedic and Ayush products under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 ("1945 Rules").

The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was referring to the letter dated August 29, 2023 issued by Ministry of Ayush to all State/UT Licensing Authorities and Drug Controllers of AYUSH regarding omission of Rule 170 (and related provisions) of the 1945 Rules. On the basis of a recommendation of the Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) given on May 25, 2023 to omit the provision, this letter directed all Licensing Authorities to not initiate/take action under Rule 170.Justice Kohli asked the Union to respond on "what weighed with" it to omit Rule 170. Further, the judge voiced concern that since Rule 170 imposed a prohibition/check on advertisements prior to publication, its withdrawal implied the ads could only be checked after publication under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

Warning of consequences, Justice Amanullah asked Union's counsel, "Is it within your jurisdiction or power to say that the law is there but don't act...till the time it is taken to its logical conclusion? Can you do that? Is it not arbitrary and colorable exercise? Then you are also liable to be proceeded against as abettor to the crime, whoever has made that statement".