Patanjali saga: Ayush ministry issues warning on misleading ads to traditional drugmakers

The Ayush ministry has issued a warning to all Ayurvedic, Siddha, Unani, and Homoeopathic manufacturers to strictly comply with labelling and advertising regulations, failing which they could face legal action.

After the Supreme Court rap on Patanjali Ayurved over misleading advertisements, the ministry has turned its focus on advertisements claiming “100% safe”, “guaranteed treatment”, or “permanent cure” from ayurvedic, homoeopathic or other traditional drugmakers.

The ministry has provided a clarification regarding products that make unsubstantiated claims or display false information, such as featuring a ‘green logo’ claiming to be ‘100% vegetarian’ or falsely stating that the drug is “approved or certified by the ministry”, News18 reported on April 27.

The ministry has asked manufacturers to ‘strictly adhere’ to labelling provisions and advertisements of ayurvedic, unani, siddha and homoeopathy drugs.

“Any misleading claim or advertisement in any form or on any platform will attract consequent legal actions by the competent authorities,” the advisory said.

The ministry has ordered state drug licensing officials to examine all such drugs claiming to be ‘certified or approved by Ministry of Ayush’, either on the label or in the advertisements, and ensure compliance. 

“It has come to the notice of the Ministry of Ayush that some Ayush drug manufacturers are mentioning ‘certified or approved by Ministry of Ayush’ on the label of their drug or product or in the advertisement in print, electronic media,” it said.

While the ministry clarified that it has no role in granting manufacturing licences or approvals to any Ayush drug or product, it cautioned that going forward, any such claim on the label or advertisement will attract “consequent legal action against the alleged manufacturer by the Ministry of Ayush”.

Lens on fake claims

The advisory said products claiming to be ‘100% safe’, ‘free from side effects’, ‘guaranteed treatment’, or ‘permanent cure’ or having nutraceutical value to ayush drugs or products are incorrect. 

It added that licensing by the state drug licensing authority “shouldn’t be construed as an approval by the Ministry of Ayush”. The licence issued by a state authority is only permission to manufacture or sell a particular drug or product based on the fulfilment of conditions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940, it added.

The advisory has been marked to multiple authorities, including all state ayush drug licensing authorities, with a request to forward a copy of it to all the licencees under their jurisdiction. It is also marked to all Ayush drug manufacturers and their associations.

It has also been sent to the National Pharmacovigilance Coordination Centre, which monitors and designs drug safety profiles. The centre has been asked “to ensure reporting of such claims of approval or certification by Ministry of Ayush to concerned State Licensing Authority, under intimation to this Ministry of Ayush”.

Laws  

The other half of the advisory mentions several laws that have provisions for the labelling of ayurveda, siddha and unani (ASU) drugs. “Rule 106A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, has provisions for labelling of Homoeopathic medicine,” it said. 

It also highlighted that the provisions related to the advertisement, including for Ayush drugs, are prescribed under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable advertisements) Act, 1954.

“Besides these, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995; the Emblems & Names (prevention of improper use) Act, 1950 are a few acts or regulations that have provisions to control misleading advertisements,” it said.