'Illegible, Miniscule Font': Supreme Court Expresses Discontent Over Size Of Apology Published By IMA President

The Supreme Court today again expressed displeasure with an apology published by Indian Medical Association's President Dr RV Asokan in relation to his  remarks against the Court in a media interview over the Patanjali contempt case.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta,objecting to the size of the apology ads published, directed that their physical copies be placed on record within 1 week.

The hearing began with Senior Advocate PS Patwalia (for IMA) drawing the Court's attention to the apology published on behalf of Dr Asokan. When the bench expressed discontent with the size of the apology ad, the senior counsel contrasted the IMA President's case with Patanjali, saying that the former's interview was not carried in any newspaper. "It was only online", he said.

In response, Justice Kohli remarked, "Wherever it went, it damaged you. You give us a physical copy of this newspaper. Show us the actual size (of the apology). Only that. No arguments till we see it. You drew our attention to it, now let's stick to it".

As an example, Patwalia referred to an apology published in a Kerala media. At this point, Justice Kohli shot back, saying, "PTI did not quote him and put it in the press in Kerala alone, right?"

Patwalia's response to the same was that the apology had been published all over India. When the bench asked him to show the copies of the said published apologies, the senior counsel could not comply. He however claimed that all apologies were similar in nature.

"He (Dr Asokan) is genuinely sorry, Milord. He's here. He's a responsible doctor. He made that statement and he has regretted since then. He is willing to give the apology here" Patwalia added.

Cutting him short, Justice Mehta commented: "He (Dr Asokan) is not obliging anyone by tendering an apology".

Adverting back to the apology ad, Justice Kohli exclaimed that the bench was unable to read it as it was "less than 0.01 cm". Accordingly, directions were passed to file the apology ads in the following terms:

"Mr Patwalia states that an unconditional apology has been published in the print version of The Hindu newspaper in 20 editions on 23.08.2024. The excerpt of the newspaper filed on behalf of Dr Asokan is illegible, inasmuch as the font is miniscule. Learned counsel for Dr Asokan is directed to file a copy of the relevant page of each of the 20 news editions of The Hindu newspaper in which the apology has been published for perusal of the Court. Needful shall be done within 1 week."

While re-listing the matter, the Bench clarified that Dr Asokan was being given the leeway of not being required to attend on the next date. Justice Mehta further added that if the apology was found to be bonafide and genuine, the Court will take notice of that.

Background

IMA filed the instant case against Patanjali Ayurved for its "misleading" claims and "disparaging" advertisements against the Allopathic system of medicines. Subsequently, Patanjali gave 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.

After the court's rap, Patanjali published an apology in newspapers, giving its own name alongside that of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. Thereafter, orders were reserved in the contempt case and the proceedings closed on August 13.

During a hearing in April 2024, the spotlight was however turned on IMA, when the Court asked 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. On April 30, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for Patanjali) brought the interview to the court's notice. He alleged that the IMA President criticized the Court's observations regarding the need for IMA to take action on complaints of unethical practices by allopathic doctors as "vague" and "unfortunate".

Subsequently, Patanjali MD Acharya Balkrishna 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 to the IMA President on the Patanjali MD's application and impleaded him as a co-respondent.

When the matter was listed on May 14, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the apology furnished by Dr Asokan. The IMA President was personally present before the Court and conveyed an unconditional apology. However, the bench of Justices Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was not happy with his conduct. It questioned the genuineness of Dr Asokan's apology by asking why he did not issue a public apology before coming to the court.

Thereafter, on July 9, the Court was informed that an apology on behalf of the IMA President had been sent to media and published in IMA's monthly journal as well as website. On the next date (ie August 6), the Court again expressed displeasure with the nature of apology tendered by the IMA President, saying "he was inviting more trouble for himself".

On this date, Patwalia tried to explain that the IMA President's comments were a response to two questions asked during the interview with PTI and the IMA was not publishing advertisements. However, the bench commented that the IMA President could not wash his hands off by sending an apology to PTI. The apology had to be published in all newspapers which carried his interview; also, it had to be done using Dr Asokan's own funds and not the funds of IMA, the court said.

Recently, the Court also closed the contempt proceedings against Patanjali, Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, accepting their apologies.

Appearance: Senior Advocate PS Patwalia (for IMA); Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat; ASG KM Nataraj (for Union of India); Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Internet and Mobile Association of India)

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