 1510/2024) has sparked significant interest and debate.){kind=link}
New Delhi: In a recent legal battle at the High Court of Delhi, the case of Yatin Sharma vs. Union of India & Others (W.P.(C) 1510/2024) has sparked significant interest and debate. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Yatin Sharma, and Mr. Mohit Solanki, advocates, brought forth a crucial issue concerning the product “DIVYA MANJAN” manufactured by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., represented by Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, GP, and Ms. Ira Singh, Advocate.
The petitioner’s plea encompassed several critical demands, including the initiation of strict legal actions against the respondents for misleading and misrepresenting the product, investigation into the failure to mention specific marks on the packaging, and adherence to WHO manufacturing standards.
This legal battle is not new. In a previous writ petition (W.P.(C) 7985/2023), the petitioner raised similar concerns, prompting the court to direct them to file a complaint with the appropriate authorities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court’s directive led to a communication from the Ministry of Ayush, acknowledging the issue but highlighting the absence of provisions for marking non-vegetarian ingredients on labels.
The communication also revealed the constitution of a committee to determine criteria for categorizing raw materials into vegetarian, non-vegetarian, or other categories, acknowledging the complex interplay of religious, ethical, and regional considerations.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the Committee, constituted by the Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB), to come out with its recommendations within 10 weeks.
This legal saga raises profound questions about consumer protection, product labeling, and the regulatory framework governing Ayurvedic products. The absence of clear guidelines for marking non-vegetarian ingredients underscores the need for robust regulatory mechanisms to safeguard consumer interests and ensure transparency in product labeling.
The Court said that,
“A perusal of the aforesaid communication dated 01.08.2023 shows that a Committee has been constituted to determine the criteria by which raw materials used in the production of drugs can be categorised into veg, non veg or more categories.”
Furthermore, the case highlights the evolving nature of consumer rights litigation in India, where courts play a pivotal role in addressing complex issues at the intersection of law, commerce, and public health.
As the legal proceedings continue, it remains to be seen how the court will adjudicate on the petitioner’s demands and whether it will pave the way for greater accountability and transparency in the marketing and sale of Ayurvedic products in India.
In conclusion, the case of Yatin Sharma vs. Union of India & Others serves as a compelling reminder of the importance of vigilant consumer advocacy and the critical role of the judiciary in upholding consumer rights and ensuring adherence to regulatory standards in the marketplace.