“What Are You Doing?” Supreme Court Asks IMA President To Explain Alleged Contemptuous Comments Against Court

The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the contempt case against Patanjali over the publication of misleading advertisements. Notably, the Court has now also impleaded IMA's president in the matter as a co-respondent.

It may be recalled that during the hearing on April 30, Patanjali's counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, had brought the aforementioned interview to the court's notice. It was alleged that the IMA President criticized the Supreme Court's observations regarding the need for IMA to take action on complaints of unethical practices by allopathic doctors as "vague" and "unfortunate".

Following this, the court permitted Patanjali counsels to bring the interview in question on record.

At the commencement of today's hearing, Rohatgi informed the bench about this application. In this respect, the Court sought response from Senior Advocate P.S Patwalia.

The Bench strongly rebuked the interview given by the IMA President, Dr.RV Ashokan, especially when the matter was pending before the Court.

“In a case where your client's president goes to the press and makes the statements in the matter that is sub-judice? You are the one who got the other side saying that they are running misleading advertisements. What are you doing? Making comments on the (Court's proceedings)”

When Patwalia said that the president was mostly praising the judgment, the Court shorted back instantly, saying that it does not need a pat on its back. Justice Kohli added “This innocent reply is not persuading us” and went on to say:

“Let us make it clear that this Court does not need a pat on our back for anything. This Court is aware of the fact, and you should be aware of it, that it has broad enough shoulders to handle it all.”

In view of this above projection, the Court, while issuing notice, asked the IMA to file its response by the next date of hearing, i.e., May 13.

Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022