Supreme Court today stayed announcement from the government dated July 1, 2024, where Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 was released.
Class of Umpires Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta accepted the order and noted that the omission was in the teeth of the court’s order dated May 7, 2024. It read as follows:
“Enclosed with the statement submitted by the Ministry of Ayush is a notification issued on July 1, 2024 under which the Narcotic Drugs (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2024 have been notified, stating that Rule 170 of the Narcotic Drugs Rules shall be omitted… Mgr. 12 of the statement further states that in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court to expedite steps for notification dated February 2, 2024 vide order dated May 7, 2024, the Ministry of Ayush notified Rule 170 and its related acts of Narcotics and Cosmetics Rules 1945 vide notification dated July 2, 2024…in our opinion, the aforementioned notification is in violation of the requirement that the court accepted on May 7, 2024. where care was taken…instead of revoking the letter dated 29th August 2023 for reasons best known to the Ministry, a notification dated 1st July 2024 has been issued omitting Rule 170 of the Narcotic Drugs Code which is in violation of the instructions given have been out. by this court. Until further orders, the effect of notification dated July 1, 2024, omitting rule 170, will stand. In other words, until further orders are passed, Rule 170 shall remain on the statute book.“
It may be recalled that two larger issues had arisen during the hearing of the Patanjali contempt case in April, one of which was related to the stay of action under Rule 170 by the Ayush Ministry.
Rule 170 prohibits advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani medicines without approval of licensing authority. However, on 29 August 2023, the Ministry of Ayush sent a letter to all State Licensing Authorities/UTs and Drug Controllers of AYUSH, directing that action under Rule 170 not be initiated/taken by them in view of the recommendations of the Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) to omit the provision. At that time, a final notice to drop the rule was to be published.
In April, the Supreme Court sought clarification from the Union on the AYUSH Ministry’s letter. On May 7, the union informed the court that it will “immediately” withdraw the letter in question.
Today, however, it was observed by the court that instead of withdrawing the letter, the Center issued a notification on July 1, 2024 to the effect that Rule 170 shall be waived. A statement was also submitted that the same has been done in accordance with the court order.
Noting that the union’s action was in the way of the court’s order, the effect of the notification was stayed from July 1, 2024 until further orders.
Exchange in the courtroom
J Kohli (to ASG KM Nataraj): How did you issue the notification on July 1, 2024?
ASG: It is withdrawn
J Kohli: No, it isn’t. You have omitted rule 170.
ASG: That was what we had pointed out
J Kohli: No, we are not on the same page
J Mehta: That was not the intention. (The intention was) Withdraw the letter, not the rule…
J Kohli: What you have retracted is the rule, not the letter. This notice is in the teeth of the orders of this Court. How did you make this decision?
ASG: This decision is consistent with the court’s own ruling. In point 12 it is pointed out…
J Mehta: The intent was to enforce Rule 170. Given this omission, any manufacturer can go about advertising their drugs with impunity, which was the whole point…
Amicus Shadan Farasat: In their statement they say “in accordance” with the order of your lordship
J Kohli: Maybe the prefix “not” was deleted in the typo
ASG: I will file a statement
J Kohli: This flies in the teeth. No statement. We are canceling your notice here and now. How could you present this with an affidavit explaining it? We are really surprised. You are violating our own order. This is not appreciated
ASG: Let me explain
J Kohli: We will be, you can explain it
Appearance: Amicus Curiae and Chief Shadan Farasat; ASG KM Nataraj (for Union)
Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | WP(C) no. 645/2022
#Supreme #Court #stays #Ayush #Ministrys #notification #waive #ban #advertisement #Ayurvedic #Unani #Siddha #medicines #consent