Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Patanjali Ayurved's Apology In Contempt Case,Warns Baba Ramdev Of Perjury Proceedings

In this regard, the Division Bench had previously issued a Contempt notice (on February 27) to Patanjali Ayurved and its MD noting that Patanjali continued misleading advertisements despite the assurance given by Patanjali's counsel last November before the Court that it would refrain from making such advertisements.

Following this, on March 19, when the Court was informed that the reply to the Contempt notice was not filed, it went on to pass an order seeking the personal appearance of Acharya Balakrishna and the company's co-founder Baba Ramdev, who also featured in the press conferences and advertisements published after the undertaking given to the Court.

Today, the Court noted that Baba Ramdev's affidavit was not on record and made it clear that the matter has to be taken to its logical conclusion. Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, who appeared for Baba Ramdev, submitted that the parties were physically present today and ready to apologize in person. However, this submission did not appeal to the Court which said that if the parties wanted to apologize, then they should have filed proper affidavits.

Notwithstanding, after hearing the counsels, the Court granted Baba Ramev the last opportunity to file a reply, and the timeline given is one week. Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for April 10 and made it clear that the physical presence of both parties is required on the next date of the hearing. 

Court questions the affidavit filed by Patanjali MD

The Court took exception to the explanation given in MD Acharya Balkrishna's affidavit that the media department of the company was not aware of the Supreme Court's order.  

Conveying the Court's displeasure to Patanjali's counsel Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, Justice Kohli said that the MD cannot "feign ignorance" and that the media department cannot be regarded as a "standalone island".

"Once there are undertakings given to the court, then whose duty it is to convey to the entire chain down the line?" Justice Kohli asked.

Sanghi agreed that there had been a lapse and expressed his regret for the same. Justice Kohli replied, "Your regret may not be sufficient for the Court. It amounts to the gross violation of the undertaking given to the highest court of the land, which is not to be taken lightly."

“Just to say that now you are sorry, we can also say that we are sorry. We are not willing to accept such an explanation... that your media department is not a standalone department, is it? That it would not know that what is happening in the Court proceedings.”

Justice Kohli went on to say that this apology is not persuading this Court and is more of a "lip service." 

Court takes exception to Patanjali's statement against Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954

It may be noted that in the order passed on February 27, the Court had restrained 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.

However, the affidavit filed by the MD stated that this Act was “in an archaic state.” He also stated that the Act was enacted at a time when scientific evidence regarding Ayurvedic medicines was lacking. He added that the Company now possesses evidence-based scientific data with clinical research conducted in Ayurveda, which would demonstrate the advances made through scientific research in the context of diseases mentioned in the schedule of the Act.

In this context, Justice Kohli said, "Shall we assume that every Act which is archaic should not be enforced in law? At this moment we are wondering that when there is an Act that governs the field, how can you violate it? Your all advertisements are in the teeth of that Act".

“To top it all ,and that is adding insult to the injury, you give a solemn undertaking to this Court and you violate it with impunity?”

The Court categorically refused to accept such an apology and termed the same as “perfunctory.”

Defending the same, Sanghi submitted that the Act was passed in 1954 and that science has made a lot of progress since then. However, Justice Kohli did not change her stance and asked the counsel: Have you approached the concerned ministry to say that amend the act?

In his another attempt to persuade the Court, Sanghi said that they have conducted their own trials. However, the Court did not relent.

Court warns Ramdev of perjury

Moving on to Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, who appeared for Baba Ramdev, the Court voiced its discontent with the fact that the reply was not in the record. Justice Kohli said that ample time has been given.

Justice Kohli also said that being the organization's co-founder, it was unbelievable that he was not aware of the Court's order. Further, she also pointed out the fact that a press conference was held by Ramdev within 24 hours after the Court's order in November last year. "This shows that you were cognisant of the order, and despite that, you flouted it", Justice Kohli said. 

Notably, during the hearing, the Bench also pointed out that there had been a perjury on the part of Patanjali and Ramdev.  Perjury is an act of making a false statement, under oath, before the Court. 

“Now, we will take note of the Perjury. Mr. Balbir Singh be prepared of all consequences…separate perjury cases will start against both of you... We do not hide behind the back, we are opening our cards. Perjury at this level, at this proceeding!” Justice Amanullah said.

"You said documents have been attached, but the documents were created later on. This is a clear case of perjury! We are not closing the doors on you but we are telling all that we have noted," Justice Kohli said.

Also from today's hearing - Why Union Govt Didn't Act Against Patanjali For False Claims On COVID Cure? Supreme Court Asks

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 that the reply to the Contempt notice was not filed, it went on 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.

Case Title: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 000645 - / 2022