Patanjali: SC poses tough questions to Centre

The Supreme Court had some tough questions for the centre and the Indian Medical Association Tuesday as it continued a marathon hearing into the IMA’s claim of misleading advertisements by Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurved, including those for Coronil, a preparation touted as a “cure” for COVID-19.
To begin with, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah wanted to know why the government had omitted Rule 170 from the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, or DMR, which prohibits ads of medicines as products with “magical” abilities.
Rule 170 had been inserted in the DMR in 2018 to check claims made by companies, including Patanjali, selling ayurvedic preparations. In August last year, however, the AYUSH Ministry made a surprising U-turn, based on a special technical board’s inputs, and recommended its omission.
Additionally, authorities were told not to take action under this rule.
Specifically, Rule 170 required companies making Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicinal preparations to obtain clearances from the state licensing authority before running advertisements.
The irate Supreme Court – which over the past weeks has grilled Ramdev and Patanjali co-founder Acharya Balakrishna over the size and substance of apologies for running misleading ads – wanted to know why the centre backtracked and noted “it looks like authorities were busy looking at revenue”.