Kerala Courts Intensify Legal Actions Against Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Associates

Legal proceedings against yoga guru Baba Ramdev, his associate Acharya Balkrishna, and Divya Pharmacy, the marketing arm of Patanjali Ayurved, have escalated in Kerala. A total of 26 cases have been filed across various courts in the state, alleging violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954. These cases focus on accusations of disseminating misleading advertisements claiming that certain Patanjali products can cure ailments such as high blood pressure and diabetes.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II in Palakkad has been particularly proactive. In October 2024, the court initiated a case based on a complaint from the Palakkad Drugs Inspector. The complaint accused Divya Pharmacy of publishing advertisements in prominent newspapers, asserting that their products could cure specific diseases—a practice prohibited under the 1954 Act. Despite multiple summonses, the accused failed to appear in court. Consequently, the court escalated its actions, issuing a non-bailable arrest warrant to ensure their presence at the next hearing scheduled for February 15, 2025.
Similar legal actions have been observed in other districts. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kakkanad, Ernakulam, has summoned Ramdev and Balkrishna in connection with illegal drug promotions. The court has set hearing dates for January 30 and February 17, 2025. Additionally, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Thiruvananthapuram has issued notices to the same individuals, with proceedings slated for November 21, 2024.
The Kerala Drugs Control Department has been at the forefront of these actions, filing a total of 10 cases against Divya Pharmacy for allegedly publishing misleading advertisements. These cases are distributed across various courts: four in Kozhikode, three in Palakkad, two in Ernakulam, and one in Thiruvananthapuram. The department contends that these advertisements violate Section 3 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, which prohibits the promotion of cures for 54 specified diseases.
This legal scrutiny is not confined to Kerala. In Haridwar, multiple summonses have been issued to the accused, yet they have consistently failed to appear in court. Despite four hearings, no action has been taken to compel their attendance. This pattern of non-compliance has raised concerns about the efficacy of legal mechanisms in addressing such violations.
The Supreme Court of India has also weighed in on the matter. On January 15, 2025, the apex court admonished states and union territories for their inaction against misleading advertisements, warning of potential contempt proceedings. This admonition came during a hearing of a case filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali Ayurved, alleging a smear campaign against modern medicine. The court emphasized the necessity for strict enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act to prevent the dissemination of unverified medical claims.
Historically, Patanjali Ayurved and its affiliates have faced multiple allegations of promoting products with unsubstantiated claims. In August 2022, the IMA filed a petition accusing the company of disparaging allopathy to market its drugs, citing violations of both the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The Supreme Court, in November 2023, cautioned Patanjali against disseminating misleading advertisements, threatening substantial fines for each deceptive claim. Despite assurances to cease such practices, the company continued to publish contentious advertisements.
In response to these ongoing violations, the Supreme Court, in February 2024, imposed a temporary ban on Patanjali's advertisements and issued a contempt notice to the company's managing director, Acharya Balkrishna. The court mandated that Patanjali publish prominent apologies in newspapers. Initially, the apologies were deemed insufficient, prompting the court to demand more conspicuous retractions. Additionally, the Uttarakhand Licensing Authority revoked licenses for 14 Patanjali products following scrutiny from the Supreme Court over regulatory inaction. Open URL