Patanjali Case | Supreme Court Expresses Dissatisfaction With IMA President's Apology, Says It Must Be Published In All Major Papers

During the hearing of the Patanjali misleading ads case, the Supreme Court today expressed displeasure with the nature of apology tendered by Indian Medical Association President Dr RV Asokan in relation to his contemptuous remarks against the Court in an interview.

Commenting that Dr Asokan was "inviting more trouble" for himself, the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter to August 27, on a submission by Senior Advocate PS Patwalia (for IMA) that Dr Asokan would take appropriate steps to purge himself of the contempt.

The bench remarked that the IMA President cannot wash his hands off by sending an apology to the Press Trust of India. The apology has to be published in all newspapers which carried his interview; also, it has to be done using Dr Asokan's own funds and not the funds of IMA, the Court said.

"All those newspapers in which that interview was carried, you need to approach them to tender apology through your own pocket. Not IMA," Justice Kohli said.

The observations came in response to Patwalia's explanation that the IMA President's comments were a response to two questions asked during the interview with PTI which lasted for about 1.5 hours and the IMA was not publishing advertisements.

Background

IMA had filed the case against Patanjali Ayurved for its "misleading" claims and "disparaging" advertisements against the Allopathic system of medicines. Subsequently, Patanjali had given an undertaking to the court that no such statements would be made in future. However, the misleading ads continued, leading the court to initiate contempt proceedings against Patanjali, its MD Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev for continuing to publish misleading medical advertisements in breach of the court undertaking.

In the proceedings that followed, Patanjali, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna tendered apologies to the court, but the same were rejected. After the court's rap, Patanjali published an apology in newspapers giving its own name alongside that of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. Thereafter, on May 14, orders were reserved in the contempt case.

During a hearing in April 2024, the Court also turned the spotlight on IMA asking it to "set its house in order" by taking action on complaints regarding the unethical practices of its members. Following that, IMA President-Dr RV Asokan gave a press interview, where he reportedly slammed the Supreme Court's observations against IMA members. In response, Patanjali filed an application in the pending proceedings seeking action against Dr Asokan for his "contemptuous" remarks against the Court. On May 7, the Court issued notice on that application to the IMA President.

Since the court slammed State Licensing Authorities (particularly of Uttarakhand) in April for inaction on their part, certain affidavits had been filed, while others remained to be placed before the court. Time was given to do the needful, with the bench recording that it would consider Uttarakhand's affidavit on the next date.

On July 9, Uttarakhand's affidavit was before the Court, however, the matter was re-listed in that regard as IMA sought time to file a counter. The Court instead considered an additional affidavit filed by Patanjali and asked if pursuant to its notice, intermediaries and social-media platforms have taken down ads relating to the 14 Ayurvedic medicines for which licenses were suspended by Uttarakhand State Licensing Authorities.

As no clear response was forthcoming from the parties on the above aspect, the Court directed Patanjali to file an affidavit. Additionally, it issued notice on multiple interlocutory applications (IAs) filed on behalf of Internet and Mobile Association of India, Association of Radio Operators for India, Broadband India Forum, Indian Newspaper Society, etc. highlighting issues being faced by the advertisement industry in the context of a direction issued by the Court on May 7 putting restraints on advertising agencies.

In this regard, ASG KM Nataraj informed that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was having held high-level meetings with various stakeholders, including some of the applicants, with the idea of resolving the issues and difficulties faced by them. As such, the bench directed that the Ministry have further meetings and file an affidavit giving recommendations.

On the last date, the Court was informed that the sale of 14 Ayurvedic products by Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy, for which licenses were earlier suspended by the Uttarakhand government, was continuing as the suspension order had been cancelled and a fresh decision on the issue was pending with the state government. Considering, it was directed that the Uttarakhand government take a decision on the issue within 2 weeks.

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