The Maharashtra government has assured the Bombay High Court that it will temporarily refrain from conducting raids, seizures, or any confiscation activities against Ayurvedic products manufactured by Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. This assurance comes amidst allegations of misleading labelling on their products, as documented in the case Divya Pharmacy & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.
The State conveyed to the Court that these enforcement actions will be paused until the Union government devises a comprehensive national policy regarding labelling and advertising practices in the Ayurvedic sector. Divya Pharmacy, a key manufacturer for the Patanjali Group, has been at the center of these legal challenges.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad acknowledged this assurance, given by the representatives of Divya Pharmacy. The Court was addressing a collection of six petitions from the companies, contesting the State Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) actions related to labels purportedly indicating cures for serious conditions such as cancer and diabetes.
According to the order, the Chief Public Prosecutor indicated that since the Union of India intends to establish a position on the matter affecting all States, Maharashtra will not escalate the situation by continuing with further enforcement actions against Ayurvedic pharmaceutical companies.
Legal Arguments and Industry Implications
The petitions, submitted by Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali, seek to overturn the seizure actions and panchnamas, and request protection against additional coercive measures. They also demand that any changes in regulatory frameworks around “indication labelling” be uniformly applied across the industry, with adequate notice provided.
More Read
Senior advocate Birendra Saraf, representing Divya Pharmacy, argued that the indication labelling on product cartons merely specifies the ailments a product is intended for, a longstanding practice in Ayurveda. He asserted that such labelling does not inherently violate the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which prohibits advertising suggesting that a drug can treat specific diseases.
Saraf emphasized that almost every Ayurvedic product in the market employs similar labelling, suggesting that targeting Divya Pharmacy alone imposes unfair constraints, impacting its marketability while competitors continue with the same practices. He proposed that if such labelling is now deemed objectionable, regulators should issue a broad directive across India to all Ayurvedic manufacturers, providing a reasonable compliance period before enforcing the law uniformly.
Government and Regulatory Perspectives
Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray countered the notion that Maharashtra’s actions were selective, stating that the FDA has pursued actions against numerous manufacturers. He highlighted that misleading claims on packaging pose significant public health risks, especially in a country with high incidences of diabetes and cardiac conditions. Hiray insisted that the FDA is committed to addressing all wrongdoers, including major brands.
More Read
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, cautioned that indiscriminate confiscation could adversely affect doctors and patients who depend on these medicines. He suggested that interim protection might be reasonable until the Central government establishes a clear stance and the Court adopts a comprehensive approach.
The Court has issued notices to the respondents, including both Union and State authorities, and scheduled further consideration of the interim relief plea for July 2.
