State assures Bombay High Court it will halt raids on Patanjali in misleading Ayurvedic label case

The Maharashtra government on Wednesday assured the Bombay High Court that it will not, for the time being, precipitate further action including raids, seizures or confiscation drives against Ayurvedic products of Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd over allegedly misleading labels [Divya Pharmacy & Anr v. Union of India & Ors] .The State told the Court that it will halt such raids and actions until the Union government formulates a uniform nationwide policy on such labelling and advertising.Divya Pharmacy is the manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines for the Patanjali Group. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad recorded the assurance given by Divya Pharmacy.The bench was hearing a batch of six petitions filed by the companies challenging action taken by the State Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in relation to labels that allegedly suggest cures or treatment for cancer, diabetes and other serious ailments. “The Chief Public Prosecutor submits on instructions that as the Union of India desires to take a stand in such matters, concerning all the States in this country, the State of Maharashtra would not precipitate the issue by continuing further raids and seizures, raids and confiscations of manufactured products of Ayurvedic pharmaceutical companies,” the order recorded..The petitions were filed by Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali seeking quashing of seizure actions and panchnamas, protection against further coercive steps and directions that any regulatory change on “indication labelling” be applied uniformly across the industry after reasonable notice. Senior advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing for Divya Pharmacy, argued that indication labelling on the carton merely states the ailments for which a product is intended and has long been an industry-wide practice in Ayurveda. According to him, such labelling does not by itself violate the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which bars advertisements suggesting that a drug can be used for specified diseases. .He submitted that almost every possible Ayurvedic drug in the market carries similar indications and singling out Divya Pharmacy and its allied entity imposes an unfair condition that wipes out their marketability while competitors continue with the same labelling.Saraf urged that if regulators now consider such labelling objectionable, they should issue a general, pan-India direction to all Ayurvedic manufacturers to discontinue such references and grant a reasonable compliance window of a few months. Only thereafter should the law be enforced rather than using confiscation and raids against one group of manufacturers alone. .Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray opposed any suggestion that Maharashtra’s action was selective. He pointed out that the FDA has initiated proceedings against several manufacturers. He submitted that labels and wrappers are expressly covered and that false or exaggerated claims on packaging directly imperil public health in a country that is among the worst affected by diabetes and cardiac ailments. FDA is “running behind every wrongdoer” including large brands, he underscored..For the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cautioned that blanket confiscation or harsh measures against stocks could also harm doctors and patients who rely on these medicines. He suggested that, until the Central government crystallises its stand for all States and the court takes a “holistic” view, interim protection could be considered. .The bench issued notice to the respondents, including the Union and State authorities, and posted the matter for considering the prayer for interim relief on July 2.