The Supreme Court today criticized the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) for its failure to take action against Patanjali Ayurved for years.
A bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah stated that the State Licensing Authority appears to have chosen to act against Patanjali’s misleading advertisements only after the top court passed strictures and made strong observations in that regard.
Mentioning that the authority did everything it was supposed to do within 7-8 days, the court asked SLA to explain its inaction for years. The court questioned why there was a violation of orders of superior authorities to conduct inspection. It further asked the authority’s stand to assist the court as counsel and why for 6 years, everything was in limbo?
Earlier on Saturday, the SLA had filed an affidavit apologising for its earlier inaction and stated that it has filed a criminal complaint against Patanjali Ayurved and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
During the hearing today, Justice Kohli remarked that long and short is that when the authority wants to move, they move like lightning! And when they don’t want to they don’t. She added that in three days flat, the SLA has done all that they needed to do! However, they should have done all that much earlier.
Appearing for SLA, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta explained the details of the action taken and also told the court that the authority has informed Centre’s AYUSH Ministry about the suspension of certain Patanjali products. Subsequently, Justice Amanaullah remarked that now the concerned authority realised its power.
Furthermore, the court also came down heavily upon the affidavit lodged by the SLA mentioning that it did not contain details of actions taken previously and that its claims of being vigilant were not backed up. The court was also disappointed to find that the affidavit had reproduced a paragraph from an earlier affidavit to state that the authority had been vigilant. The apex court opined that this phenomenon reflected the casual nature of the affidavit.
On the claims of being vigilant, the Supreme Court asked SLA officer Dr. Swastik Suresh whether any on site inspection was conducted as mentioned in the affidavit. Weighing in, Justice Amanullah asked for the report that they went and did inspection. After interacting with the officer, the Court said that it did not want to unnerve him.
Justice Amanullah pointed out the officer has made a categorical statement on affidavit that he conducted an inspection and reported his findings in a letter. The apex court clarified that the officer can be candid in his submissions, and that the court would understand if he is being truthful.
Consecutively, the top court observed that it appeared that authorities took action after a delay and only after being pulled up by the court. The court then proceeded to record the same in its order while granting permission to the authorities to file additional affidavits. The bench scheduled the matter for May 14.