 |
|
The latest legal challenge facing Patanjali Ayurved Limited, led by yoga guru Ramdev, revolves around its popular 'Divya Dant Manjan' dental care product. A petition filed by lawyer Yatin Sharma in the Delhi High Court claims that the product, despite being marketed with a green dot signifying vegetarian status, actually contains 'samudraphen,' a compound derived from fish. This revelation has sparked significant controversy, with the court issuing notices to the Centre, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and Patanjali to respond to the allegations of misbranding.
The petitioner, represented by advocates Swapnil Chaudhary and Prashant Gupta, argued that the use of the green dot on the product packaging constitutes misbranding under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, even though the law does not specifically mandate vegetarian or non-vegetarian labelling for drugs. He stated that the discovery was deeply distressing for him and his family, who adhere to a strict vegetarian diet based on religious beliefs. The petition, filed through lawyers Mohit Solanki and Pulkit Chaudhary, emphasizes the importance of transparency in product representation and upholding religious beliefs.
This legal action is the latest in a series of controversies surrounding Patanjali. In August 2023, the Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the company, its key aide Balkrishna, and Ramdev, following allegations of violating court orders related to misleading advertisements about their products. The court had earlier issued a warning to Patanjali in November 2023, demanding compliance with legal standards and an end to misleading claims about their products' medicinal benefits. The company initially failed to adhere to these undertakings, resulting in the contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court finally accepted an unqualified apology from Patanjali and its representatives, closing the contempt case but cautioning against future violations.
The current legal battle over 'Divya Dant Manjan' highlights the importance of clear and accurate product labelling, especially when it comes to religious beliefs and dietary restrictions. The Delhi High Court's demand for responses from the relevant authorities and Patanjali will shed light on the company's practices and the validity of the petitioner's claims. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of product labelling and consumer rights in India.