Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Summons Against Patanjali Ayurved for Misleading Ads

Court Ruling on Patanjali Ayurved

The Uttarakhand High Court has annulled a trial court's summons directed at Patanjali Ayurved and its founders, Ramdev and Balkrishna, in response to allegations of disseminating misleading advertisements for their products.

In a ruling issued on June 3, Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma granted a petition from Patanjali Ayurved, Ramdev, and Balkrishna, invoking Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to invalidate the summons from the chief judicial magistrate in Haridwar.

This section empowers the High Court to intervene and prevent any misuse of judicial processes.

The case regarding the misleading advertisements originated from a complaint lodged last year by the food security officer of Uttarakhand.

The complaint referenced letters from the Ministry of Ayush from 2022, which indicated that several Patanjali products, such as Madhugrit, Madhunashini, and Divya Livogrit Tablet, were promoted through deceptive advertising.

The allegations included violations of Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisements Act.

Section 3 prohibits advertising certain drugs for specific diseases, while Section 4 forbids misleading drug advertisements. Section 7 details the penalties for such violations.

Justice Sharma noted in his ruling that there was a lack of evidence supporting claims of falsehood, and no specific allegations were made regarding how the advertisements were misleading.

The court stated, "Simply sending a letter to the petitioner firm requesting the removal of the advertisement without explicitly stating that the claims were false does not justify prosecution. The trial court should not have issued summons without clear allegations of misleading content."

In April 2024, the Supreme Court had previously criticized the state government for failing to act against Patanjali Ayurved and its subsidiary, Divya Pharmacy, under the same Act for allegedly misleading advertisements.

Following the Supreme Court's comments, the state government had initiated the complaint against Patanjali Ayurved, Ramdev, and Balkrishna.

The High Court emphasized that the state government could not depend on the Supreme Court's remarks in its case against Patanjali Ayurved, asserting that the complaint must be evaluated based solely on the allegations and supporting evidence presented.