On Friday, the Delhi High Court issued notices to Baba Ramdev and Patanjali’s Divya Pharmacy in response to a plea in Delhi HC claims Patanjali’s herbal tooth powder, Divya Dant Manjan, contains non-vegetarian ingredients despite being labeled as vegetarian. The petition, filed by advocate Yatin Sharma, has brought to light significant concerns about the accuracy of product labeling and the potential misrepresentation of the product’s contents.
The plea in Delhi HC claims Patanjali’s Divya Dant Manjan features a ‘green dot’ on its packaging, a symbol commonly used to denote vegetarian products. However, the petition alleges that the ingredient list includes Sepia officinalis, also known as common cuttlefish. This ingredient, derived from cuttlefish bones, is not vegetarian, raising serious issues for consumers who adhere to vegetarian dietary practices.
Allegations and Court Proceedings
The petition highlights that Divya Dant Manjan, a product manufactured by Divya Pharmacy and prominently advertised on the official Patanjali website, is marketed with a green dot suggesting its vegetarian nature. The petitioner, who has been a long-time user of the product, was shocked to discover that it contains Samudraphen (Sepia officinalis), which is extracted from cuttlefish bones. This revelation is particularly distressing for the petitioner and their family, who come from a Brahmin background where consuming non-vegetarian ingredients is against their religious beliefs.
The plea in Delhi HC claims Patanjali’s misrepresentation of the product’s ingredients has caused significant emotional distress to the petitioner. They were led to believe that the product was strictly vegetarian, only to find that it contained a non-vegetarian component. The petition underscores the need for judicial intervention to address this issue, highlighting the discrepancy between the product’s labeling and its actual ingredients.
In response to the petition, Justice Sanjeev Narula has issued notices to the Centre, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Patanjali, Divya Pharmacy, Yoga guru Ramdev, and other related parties. The petitioner’s concerns are grounded in the assertion that the law does not explicitly require drugs to be labeled as vegetarian or non-vegetarian. However, the presence of a ‘green dot’ on the product’s packaging, despite the inclusion of Sepia officinalis, is argued to constitute ‘misbranding’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This misbranding is alleged to be misleading and deceptive, potentially violating consumer trust and regulatory standards.
The petition further alleges that Baba Ramdev, in a YouTube video, admitted that Samudraphen is an animal-based ingredient used in Divya Dant Manjan. This admission directly contradicts the product’s vegetarian labeling, exacerbating concerns about transparency and accuracy in labeling practices.
Despite numerous complaints filed with various government agencies, including the Delhi Police, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, FSSAI, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, and the Ministry of Ayush, the petitioner claims that no action has been taken to address the issue. This inaction has prompted the petitioner to seek judicial redress, emphasizing the importance of transparency and adherence to religious and ethical dietary practices.
The Delhi High Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 28, focusing on the plea in Delhi HC claims Patanjali’s Divya Dant Manjan is misbranded due to its misleading vegetarian labeling. This case underscores the critical need for accurate product labeling and regulatory oversight to protect consumer rights and uphold religious and dietary principles.
Patanjali and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, have faced criticism in the past for deceptive advertising practices. The Supreme Court previously directed them to remove misleading advertisements for their ayurvedic products and issue public apologies. This new petition and the subsequent court proceedings highlight ongoing concerns about Patanjali’s adherence to advertising and labeling standards, further scrutinizing the company’s practices in light of legal and ethical expectations.
As the case progresses, it will be crucial to monitor the court’s response and any potential regulatory actions to ensure that consumer interests and religious sentiments are adequately addressed.
You might also be interested in – SC again refuses an apology in the Patanjali-Ramdev misleading ads case and warns the duo to prepare for action in the contempt case
