The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a criminal complaint filed against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for allegedly publishing misleading advertisements related to Ayurvedic medicines. The Court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations and evidence to prove the ads were misleading or false.
Read also: Supreme Court: Railways can levy penalty for misdeclared goods even after delivery under Section 66
The complaint was lodged in 2024 by the Senior Food Security Officer, Haridwar, under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. It cited various letters from the Ministry of Ayush in 2022 alleging that medicines like Madhugrit, Madhunashini, Divya Lipidom, and others were being advertised misleadingly.
“There is no evidence of falsity of claim, no allegation of falsity of claim nor is there any description of the manner how that is misleading,” observed Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma while setting aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 16.04.2024.
The Court emphasized that the complaint did not specify how the ads were misleading, what diseases the medicines allegedly claimed to cure, or how they violated the provisions of the 1954 Act. It also noted that no expert opinion was provided to support the claim that the ads were misleading.
Read also: Supreme Court Judges and Bar Association Express Deep Condolences on Ahmedabad Plane
“Merely writing a letter to the petitioner firm that the advertisement should be removed, without stating specifically that the claim made in the advertisements was false, does not give reasons to prosecute,” the Court stated.
Another major point raised by the Court was the time limitation for taking cognizance. Most of the alleged offences occurred before 15.04.2023, but cognizance was taken on 16.04.2024. As per Section 468 of CrPC, offences punishable with imprisonment up to one year must be taken within one year.
“Therefore, the impugned order of cognizance dated 16.04.2024 is bad in law and cannot be sustained,” the Court ruled.
The Court also found fault in the trial court’s approach, stating that the summoning order lacked judicial application of mind and did not cite any evidence supporting prosecution.
Read also: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Andhra Pradesh Mega DSC Teacher Recruitment Exam 2025
“The summoning order merely repeated the complaint’s statements and did not assess whether they constituted an offence,” the order added.
Further, the Court held that the complaint could not have been filed by the Senior Food Security Officer, as the 1954 Act allows only authorized officers to initiate such action.
The High Court also rejected the State’s argument based on Supreme Court observations in a contempt case against Patanjali, stating:
“This petition has to be decided at the anvil of whether the impugned order is lawful, correct, and legal. Observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in contempt matters are extraneous here.”
Case : M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v State of Uttarakhand
Appearances
Mr. Piyush Garg, for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
