Baba Ramdev & Acharya Balkrishna Personally Apologise To Supreme Court, Patanjali Ltd Agrees To Publish Public Apology
Baba Ramdev, co-founder of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, personally appeared before the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 16) and expressed unconditional apology for publishing misleading advertisements and making comments against Allopathic medicines in breach of an undertaking given to the Court.Acharya Balkrishna, the Managing Director of Patanjali, also personally apologised to the Court....
Baba Ramdev, co-founder of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, personally appeared before the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 16) and expressed unconditional apology for publishing misleading advertisements and making comments against Allopathic medicines in breach of an undertaking given to the Court.
Acharya Balkrishna, the Managing Director of Patanjali, also personally apologised to the Court. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali, told the Court that they are "ready to give a public apology to show contrition."
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurvedi Ltd, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev in the case over misleading advertisements.
In today's hearing, the bench personally interacted with Ramdev and Balkrishna and asked why they acted in violation of the undertaking given to the Court.
"Humne jo kiya vo uss samay nai khan chaiye tha…hum aagey yaad rakhengey (What we did at that point of time, it should not have been done. We will remember this in future)...vo utsah mein aisa ho gya(it happened in an impulse)...aagey se hum nai krenegy(won't do so in future)", Ramdev said in response to Justice Kohli's queries.
"Hume nahi krana chahiye tha(We should not have done it)", Balkrishna also told the bench.
The bench adjourned the hearing till April 23 to give an opportunity to them to redeem their acts. The bench recorded in the order as follows :
"Mr Rohatgi, senior advocate appearing for the proposed contemnors submits that to redeem themselves and demonstrate…they want to take some steps unilaterally. In request of one week's time to revert on the aforesaid aspect, this Court has interacted with the the proposed contemnors as well and heard their submissions. At the request of the respondents 5-7, list on April 23rd".
On April 2, the Court had refused to accept the first affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali MD, after noting that it was not unqualified. Last week (April 10), the Court refused to accept the second affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali MD. The Court also noted that Balkrishna and Ramdev had sworn an affidavit with non-existing flight tickets to evade personal appearance before the Court.
The Court also come down heavily on the Uttarakhand State authorities for failing to take action against Patanjali under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954
To provide a succinct overview of the recent developments, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali's advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases.
In this regard, the Division Bench had previously issued a Contempt notice to Patanjali Ayurved and Managing Director Acharya Balakrishna and Baba Ramdev over its continuing publication of misleading advertisements in breach of an undertaking given to the Court in November last year.
Brief Background Of Previous Hearings
The IMA sought to direct the Centre, Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), and the CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority of India) to take action against such advertisements and campaigns to promote the Ayush system by disparaging the Allopathic system.
Back in August 2022, the Supreme Court's Bench led by CJI Ramana issued notice to the above authorities, including Patanjali Ayurved Ltd (the company co-founded by Baba Ramdev.).
Previously, on November 21, 2023, the Court reprimanded Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading claims and advertisements against modern systems of medicine. Justice Amanullah went on to issue a stern warning of imposing a cost of Rs 1 Crore in case such advertisements are continued.
“All such false and misleading advertisements of Patanjali Ayurved have to stop immediately. The Court will take any such infraction very seriously, and the Court will also consider imposing costs to the extent of Rs. 1 crores on every product regarding which a false claim is made that it can “cure” a particular disease,” Justice Amanullah orally said
Following this, the counsel for Patanjali Ayurved assured that they would not publish any such advertisements in the future and would also ensure that casual statements are not made in the Press. The Court recorded the undertaking in its order.
Given that Patanjali Ayurved continued to publish misleading advertisements regarding medicinal cures, the Court issued notice to Patanjali Ayurved and Acharya Balakrishna (Managing Director of Patanjali) to show cause why action should not be taken against them for the contempt of court.
This direction was coupled with restraining Patanjali Ayurved from advertising or branding its products which are meant to address the diseases/disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 in the meantime. A detailed story of this hearing and the order passed can be accessed here.
Following this (on March 19), when the Bench was informed that the reply to the Contempt notice was not filed, it went on to pass the direction of personal appearance. The Court did not relent when the Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Patanjali, protested against summoning Ramdev. A detailed story of this hearing and the order passed can be accessed here.
Subsequently, the Patanjali MD filed an affidavit saying that the impugned advertisements were meant to contain only general statements but inadvertently included offending sentences. It was further stated that the advertisements were bonafide and that Patanjali's media personnel was not “cognizant” of the November order (where the undertaking was given before the top Court). However, the court expressed its reservations about this affidavit, calling it "perfunctory" and "mere lip service."
Counsel for petitioner: Senior Advocate PS Patwalia
Counsels for respondents: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Balbir Singh, Vipin Sanghi and Dhruv Mehta; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; ASG KM Nataraj, AoR Vanshaja Shukla
Case Title: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022