Uttarakhand Suspends Licenses of 14 Patanjali Products; Criminal Complaint Filed Against Ramdev, Balkrishna

The Uttarakhand government, in an order dated April 15, has suspended the licenses of 14 products belonging to Patanjali. Additionally, a criminal complaint has been lodged against Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna, and Patanjali for alleged violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

The products affected by the license suspension include Swasari Gold, Swasari Vati, Bronchom, Swasari Pravahi, Swasari Avaleh, Mukta Vati Extra Power, Lipidom, Bp Grit, Madhugrit, Madhunashini Vati Extra Power, Livamrit Advance, Livogrit, Eyegrit Gold, and Patanjali Drishti Eye Drop.

These actions coincide with ongoing proceedings in the Supreme Court against Ramdev and Patanjali’s managing director Balkrishna. The court is reviewing allegations of disobeying previous orders that prohibited Patanjali Ayurved from disseminating misleading advertisements related to health remedies.

The Supreme Court is considering a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) in 2022, which accuses Ramdev and Patanjali of orchestrating a smear campaign against the Covid vaccination drive and conventional medical practices.

Also read: Yogi Asks Rahul Gandhi To Speak Up On Atrocities Committed By Mughals

Last month, the court instructed Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna, and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd to issue a public apology for their failure to comply with previous directives regarding misleading advertisements. During recent hearings, Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned Ramdev and Balkrishna regarding allegations of contempt of court arising from the dissemination of advertisements claiming Patanjali products could cure various ailments, in clear violation of previous court orders and assurances made by Patanjali.

Ramdev expressed an “unqualified and unconditional apology” for his actions, asserting that he has never sought to undermine any form of medicine, including modern medical practices. Both Ramdev and Balkrishna tendered a similar apology before the Supreme Court.

However, the bench later raised concerns about the size and visibility of the initial apology, leading Patanjali to issue a new public apology in newspapers on April 24. The revised apology reaffirms their “unconditional public apology” for non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives, this time with larger and more prominent fonts.