Read More: II Section 4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct II
The Drugs Inspector filed the case in April this year against Divya Pharmacy, which markets and sells Patanjali products.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India too had ordered their personal appearance in contempt of court proceedings initiated against Patanjali Ayurved for its misleading advertisements.
It was filed under Sections 3(b) and 3(d) of the Drugs And Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 which prohibits advertisement of certain drugs for treatment of certain diseases and disorders.
➧ Section 3(b) prohibits ads from referring to any drug in terms that suggest, it can be used for the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of human beings for sexual pleasure.
➧ Section 3(d) prohibits ads from referring to any drug in terms which suggest that it can be used for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease, disorder, or condition specified in the Schedule, or any other disease, disorder or condition which may be specified in the rules made under the Act.
Patanjali Ayurved and its founders have recently been in the spotlight for publishing misleading ads about its products. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) had filed a petition before the Supreme Court against Patanjali Ayurved over its misleading ads which disparaged modern medicine. The Court had imposed a temporary ban on advertisements of Patanjali's medicines and issued contempt notices to its founders for making misleading claims.
After Ramdev and Balkrishna appeared before it and apologized, the Court had ordered it to publish apologies in newspapers. The Supreme Court criticized Patanjali for misleading the public and exploiting consumer trust, ordering the company to publish apologies in newspapers. The Court also admonished the Central government for not invoking the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules of 1945 against Patanjali.