Patanjali Case : Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Apology Of Indian Medical Association President

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 14) expressed dissatisfaction with the apology furnished by the President of Indian Medical Association, Dr RV Asokan, for his remarks in a media interview over certain observations made by the Court.

Dr Asokan, who was personally present before the Court pursuant to a notice issued on an application filed by Patanjali Ayurved seeking contempt action against him, conveyed an unconditional apology to the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. However, the bench was not happy with his conduct.

"Dr Asokan, with your experience, we would have expected more sense of responsibility from you," Justice Kohli said. Supplementing, Justice Amanullah said that the IMA President has done the same thing which Patanjali founders did and termed his conduct "unfortunate."

Justice Kohli remarked that Dr. Asokan's conduct would have to be treated the same way as Patanjali's. It may be recalled that the Court discarded apology tendered by Patanjali and its founders for breaching an undertaking given to the Court.

"We have the same to say for your apology, as we did for Patanjali. It's a subjudice matter in which you were party. Your counsel could have asked for expunging remarks. But you went to press. We are not at all happy. We can't condone so easy," Justice Kohli stated.

The bench questioned the genuineness of Dr Asokan's apology by asking why he did not issue a public apology before coming to the court. In response, Dr. Asokan said that he held the institution in the highest esteem.

Later, the judges conveyed their displeasure to IMA's counsel Senior Advocate PS Patwalia: "Mr Patwalia, we are not at this stage inclined to accept the apology tendered by your client".

"Give us one chance, we will take steps. He has made a mistake...it was naïve of him to do this," Patwalia urged. He tried to persuade the court that Asokan just fell into the whole situation. But Justice Kohli shot down, saying "are you saying that the news agency set a trap for him to say that?" Patwalia then explained his submission thus: "This transcription is not good enough. First 5-10 minutes of the Youtube link...he just...all these questions are just by this one person."

Justice Amanullah acknowledged this aspect, saying that the interviewer got what he wanted for TRP.

When Patwalia attempted to highlight that Dr Asokan is a respected doctor, Justice Kohli remarked that the bench was not questioning the professional competence of Dr Asokan but was only concerned about his comments on sub judice proceedings. "What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander", the judge said.

The development took place in a case filed by IMA against Patanjali Ayurved for its "misleading" claims and "disparaging" advertisements against the Allopathic system of medicines. The Court had initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved, its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna for continuing to publish misleading medical advertisements in breach of an undertaking given to the Court.

During a hearing last month, the Court turned the spotlight on the IMA asking it to "set its house in order" by taking action on complaints regarding the unethical practices of its members. Following that, Dr Asokan gave a press interview, where he reportedly slammed the Supreme Court's observations. In response, Patanjali filed an application in the pending proceedings seeking action against Dr Asokan for his "contemptuous" remarks against the Court. Last week (May 7), the Court issued notice on that application to the IMA President.

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