Kerala HC stays criminal proceedings against Ramdev, Balkrishna

Kochi, April 3 (IANS) The Kerala High Court on Thursday stayed criminal proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved's promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, in the misleading advertisement case.

A single judge bench of Justice V G Arun stayed the proceedings pending before the district court in Palakkad for three months.

The prosecution against Patanjali and its promoters was instituted based on a complaint filed by the Palakkad Drug Inspector, alleging that they shared a misleading advertisement for a product, 'Mukta Vati Extra Power', on September 30, 2023.

The complainant alleged that the 'Mukta Vati Extra Power' advertisement violated the provisions of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954.

The petitioner further alleged that the advertisement was published in a newspaper to induce patients to purchase the drugs, which will result in self-medication and use of the drug without the direction of a medical practitioner, leading to undesirable and irreparable effects on the health of persons.

Later, an inspection was conducted in the premises of Patanjali, and the drug was found stocked in the premises for sale.

As per the complaint, "It was a drug as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and that the label of the product contained 'Indications- Useful in Blood Pressure (Cardiac Disorder)', which is alleged to be an advertisement within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act."

After that, Ramdev and Balkrishna approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against them.

In their plea, they further pointed out, "The word magic remedy is defined as a drug having miraculous powers. The object of section 3(d) is to suggest/calculate to lead the use of the drug, such as a magical remedy is not advertised."

"The advertisement says that the medicine can be used only after a prescription by a registered medical practitioner, which means that it does not lead to the drug's use straightaway. So, the offence under section 3(d) is not made out," they claimed.

--IANS

sg/svn