The Supreme Court admonished the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for its swift action in suspending manufacturing licenses for 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Divya Pharmacy. Justice Hima Kohli expressed disappointment in the delayed response by the authority, highlighting the need for quicker enforcement of regulations. The court emphasized the importance of timely and decisive actions when it comes to regulatory matters, questioning the inaction that persisted for years before the recent suspension of licenses.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court raised concerns about remarks attributed to the Indian Medical Association (IMA) President RV Asokan regarding the court's criticism of practices by private doctors. The court took a dim view of the IMA's response and questioned the association's ability to dictate the court's direction. The court, during a hearing where Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented Patanjali Ayurved, requested to have the said interview entered into the record for further examination.
In response to the Uttarakhand SLA's apology for its prior inaction against Patanjali Ayurved, the court questioned the authenticity and effectiveness of the apology and expressed skepticism about the authority's claimed vigilance. The court scrutinized the timeline of actions taken, pointing out that it appeared that the authorities only acted after the court's orders rather than proactively enforcing regulations. Additionally, the court directed the SLA to provide further details on previous actions taken in a revised affidavit to be submitted within 10 days for review.