The state health department of Uttarakhand has declared Patanjali Ayurveda’s Putrajeevak Beej in gross violation of the PCPNDT Act 1994. It has also taken offence to the product in clear violation of the Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1945.
Om Prakash, principal secretary of health, is implied to have said that this legal opinion on the product along with an expert view is strongly that the Putrajeevak Beej violates both the the Drug and Cosmetic Rules 1945 and the PCPNDT Act. This, in turn, is being opined as a strong view by the health department which has the prevention of practices like promoting of male sex preference in society, under its ambit. We believe that such products act as a catalyst to suppress our efforts to spread awareness against female foeticide.
However, in a earlier report by the Uttarakhand ayurvedic and unani department, a clean chit was given to the same product last year in October.
Elaborating on the reasons behind this, Dr Arun Kumar Tripathi, director of Uttarakhand ayurvedic and unani department, has further implied that Putrajeevak Beej is not a name given by Patanjali. From Ayurveda’s perspective, it is considered to be a right medicine.
He further added that it is an internationally recognized nomenclature. Putrajeevak mean child, not son, as per ayurveda, something that needs to be told to the patients clearly while prescribing the medicine, as reported by TOI.
The report, a copy of which is with TOI, says that “the label of the medicine clearly states that the name of the drug is Putrajeevak which is beneficial for improvement in semen quality and stabilisation of pregnancy. The clinical direction which comes out of this information basically means that it is a drug which improves the count of sperms in the semen and makes pregnancy stable and the ultimate advantage to the user is that she will have only a live male child as the outcome of using this drug during the prenatal period.”
Meanwhile, Acharya Balakrishna of Patanjali questioned the state government’s motives behind “the decision to paint a negative picture of the product”. He said, “The findings of the report put a question mark on the intentions of the state government as they are trying to put the blame of poor sex ratio on ayurveda, not Patanajali. The health department on 14 May, 2009 had given a license to manufacture Putrajeevak Beej and now it is preaching against it. The state has failed in controlling female foeticide, which is evident in national health reports, and it is now dragging Patanjali into its dirty politics.”