Two years of inaction on misleading Patanjali ads

Patanjali has been a repeat offender as far as misleading ads are concerned. Its promotion of Coronil during Covid and abuse of modern medicine doctors is what caught public attention and led to the Indian Medical Association filing a case against it. But Patanjali has been issuing ads violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectional Advertisements) Act (DMRA) 1954, for several years.

Though the complaint against Patanjali to the drug controller of India happened in February 2022, the ads were appearing even before that as shown by a tweet by Patanjali in November 2019 for eye drops, which it claims are “helpful in treating glaucoma or cataract, double vision, color vision, retinitis pigmentosa and night blindness”. A clear-cut violation of DMRA.

 Here is a timeline of how the authorities supposed to take action, the Ayush ministry and the state licensing authority of Uttarakhand, where the company is based, have stalled acting for more than two years.

Feb 11, 2022 – Ayush ministry forwarded a complaint on a misleading ad for Patanjali drugs for diabetes, which “is contravening” DMRA Act. It asked SLA to take necessary action and sought an action-taken report. A copy of this letter was also sent to the MD of Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy, Acharya Balkrishna.

Feb 19, 2022 – SLA wrote to Patanjali seeking an explanation within a week and sought removal of the ad. It also directed the company to not publish any ad in future without permission from the licensing authority, failing which permission for manufacture/production of the drug would be cancelled. SLA also wrote to drug inspector/district ayurvedic and Unani officer for a spot inspection of the concerned firm and asked for a report within a week.

Feb 24, 2022 – Dr KV Babu filed a complaint with the drug controller general of India (DCGI) for an ad which appeared on February 21, 2022 for a Pathanjali drug that claimed to lower cholesterol. Another doctor also filed complaints against Patanjali ads for drugs for diabetes, cholesterol and liver disorders

Mar 16, 2022 – DCGI forwarded Dr Babu’s complaint to Ayush ministry

 Apr 15, 2022 – Ayush ministry’s drug policy section wrote to Uttarakhand SLA for withdrawal of ad and for action under DMRA 1954. It also sought an action taken report. A copy of this letter was sent to Acharya Balkrishna.

Apr 26, 2022 – SLA wrote to Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy

May 7, 2022 – Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy responded to SLA stating that it has “immediately stopped publication of the impugned advertisements”

May 13, 2022 – Ayush ministry wrote to SLA about a Patanjali ad for blood pressure lowering medicine and eye drops in contravention of DMRA, 1954

May 27, 2022 – SLA wrote to drug inspector/district Ayurvedic & Unani Officer for information and action

Jul 2, 2022 – SLA issued notice to Patanjali asking them to withdraw the objectionable ad within a week

July 10, 2022 – Patanjali again advertised five drugs meant to treat diabetes, glaucoma, goitre, high/low blood pressure and cholesterol, all conditions for which advertising drugs is prohibited under DMRA and under DCA

Jul 12, 2022 – Dr Babu filed another complaint with Uttarakhand SLA

Aug 23, 2022 – Supreme Court issued notices to health ministry, Ayush ministry and Patanjali on a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali ads that maligned modern medicine

Sept 7, 2022 – SLA directed Patanjali/Divya pharmacy to remove the ads violating DMRA and to reply to the notice

Sept 22, 2022 – Ayush wrote to SLA again seeking action

Sept 27, 2022 – SLA wrote to Ayush ministry that action can’t be taken in view of the stay by Bombay high court on Rule 170 (introduced in 2018 to stipulate that ads for Ayush drugs had to be pre-screened and cleared by the licensing authority)

Sept 28, 2022 – SLA issued notice to Patanjali under Rule 170, the one they had told Ayush ministry just the day before they could not take action under

Oct 8, 2022- Patanjali again advertised a drug for lowering blood pressure

Oct 8, 9, 11, 2022 – Dr Babu filed yet another complaint with the Uttarakhand SLA

Oct 16, 2022 – Dr Babu wrote to SLA stating that the complaint had not been filed under Rule 170 and that the complaint was for violation of DMRA 1954 section 3(d) and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, 106(1) prohibiting advertisements of scheduled drugs. He asked that action be pursued against the company under these sections.

Oct 21,2022 – Dr Babu wrote to the drug policy section of Ayush ministry about the apparent attempt by SLA to sabotage action against Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy by invoking Rule 170 which was sub judice though there was no complaint with the SLA under Rule 170

Nov 8, 2022 – Dr Babu sent follow up mail to drug policy section of Ayush ministry

Nov 9, 2022 – SLA directed Patanjali to stop production of drugs against which it had received complaints and ads for those drugs. It added that in future no ads could be placed without clearance of state directorate

Nov 12, 2022 – SLA revoked the ban on production saying it was an ‘error’

Nov 19, 2022 – Dr Babu complained to Ayush ministry about SLA’s inaction

Nov 21, 2022 – A Tamil Nadu MP wrote to Ayush ministry on Patanjali’s misleading ads

Nov 22, 2022 – In response to Dr Babu’s RTI application, Ayush ministry did a U-turn and stated that no action could be taken as Rule 170 was sub judice and that necessary action could be taken only subject to the final decision of the court. This was despite original complaint being under another law, DMRA

Nov 24, 2022 – Dr Babu wrote to Ayush ministry questioning the decision that no action could be taken. On the same day, MP Karti Chidambaram wrote to the Ayush minister seeking action against misleading ads by Patanjali

Dec 1 & 3, 2022 – Dr Babu wrote to the Ayush ministry again

Dec 16, 2022 – Ayush minister told Lok Sabha that action can be taken against misleading ads under DMRA

Dec 16, 2022 – Dr Babu wrote to Ayush ministry in view of its reply in the Lok Sabha

Dec 19, 2022 – Ayush ministry refused any further response to RTI

Jan 2 & 7, Feb 4, 2023 – Dr Babu sent reminders to Ayush ministry

Feb 10, 2023 – Ayush ministry wrote to SLA that only Rule 170 had been challenged in court and was sub judice but since DMRA has not been challenged action can be taken under it

Feb 14, 2023 – Ayush minister Sarbananda Sonowal replied to Karti Chidambaram that Uttarakhand SLA has been asked to take action under DMRA

Mar 28, 2023 – In Rajya Sabha, Sonowal listed a total of 53 complaints against advertisement of products of Patanjali reported by the government’s own peripheral pharmacovigilance centres in the 8 preceding months. He added that his ministry had forwarded several complaints to Uttarakhand SLA. Eight months would mean from August 2022, the month when Supreme Court had issued notices to the health ministry, the Ayush ministry and Patanjali on a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali’s misleading ads

May 9, 2023 – After several RTI applications and appeals during February and March to SLA regarding action taken on Ayush ministry’s letters, SLA replied that drug inspectors have investigated and that the details had been communicated to Ayush ministry

Jun 16, 2023- Patanjali advertised again

Jun 18, 2023 – Dr Babu wrote to Ayush ministry regarding recent Patanjali ad

Jul-Aug, 2023 – Dr Babu sought action taken on violation of DMRA 1954 through RTI. Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy cited a Madras high court judgement to challenge

the charge that their ad was misleading and that it violated the law. It claimed that if the drug advertised is a treatment option in the management of a disease, it is not a violation, if it did not claim to cure a disease. However, many of Patanjali’s ads have claimed to cure several diseases as noted later by the Supreme Court. Patanjali put out several ads during this period

Nov 21, 2023 – Supreme Court pulled up Patanjali for persisting with misleading ads and warned that a fine of Rs 1 crore would be imposed if they persisted. Patanjali assured the court that it would not do so.

Nov 22, 2023 – Ramdev held a press conference stating that the court cautioned against false propaganda and Patanjali did not engage in false propaganda

Dec 4, 2023- Patanjali advertised again.

Jan 14, 2024 – Dr Babu wrote to PMO regarding the inaction of SLA despite Patanjali continuing with misleading ads

 Jan 22, 2024-Patanjali advertised again

Feb 2, 2024 – Nudged by PMO, Ayush ministry again wrote to SLA. Dr Babu wrote to SLA several times in February and to Ayush ministry when SLA did not respond

Feb 27, 2024 – Supreme Court issued a contempt notice against Patanjali for continuing to place ads after giving an undertaking that it would not do so, and banned the company from advertising any product related to diseases or medical conditions listed in the DMRA

Mar 19, 2024 – Court noted Patanjali’s failure to file a reply to the contempt notice and asked Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to appear in person.

Apr 2, 2024– Court observed that the affidavit filed by Ayush ministry showed that the Uttarakhand SLA had failed to discharge its duty and only issued a warning to Patanjali, and that it was using the case in Supreme Court as an excuse to not act till the final judgement in the case though “no such direction to await any action has been passed by this Court”.

In all this time, the State Licensing Authority did not file a single case against Patanjali despite repeated violations of the law. Ayush ministry helped delay action by upholding Patanjali’s argument that since there was a stay on the implementation of Rule 170, no action could be taken. Every time, the SLA would write to the company asking them to withdraw the ad and threatening to cancel their licence to produce the drug, but nothing happened. If convicted for a violation of the DMR (OA) Act 1954, the penalty is up to six months imprisonment or fine or both for the first conviction and up to one year imprisonment or fine or both for any subsequent conviction.