Indian Medical Association President Says Public Apology Has Been Published For Remarks Against Supreme Court

During the hearing of the case filed by Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved over the publication of misleading medical advertisements, the Supreme Court today was informed that an apology on behalf of the Association's President, for his controversial remarks regarding the Patanjali hearing, has been sent to media and published in IMA's monthly journal as well as website.

The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta adjourned the matter to August 6, considering that the respondents are yet to have a chance to look at the affidavit filed on behalf of the IMA President on July 6. At request, it also exempted IMA President (Dr RV Asokan), who was present in court today, from personal appearance on the next date.

During today's hearing, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia (for IMA) drew the attention of the court to the following apology/ad published on IMA website (which appears as a pop-up):

Patwalia further informed that the apology/ad had been sent to media-houses (both electronic and print), such as PTI, Economic Times, etc. The senior counsel added that besides IMA website, a full-page apology has also been published on the first page of IMA's monthly journal.

On hearing Patwalia, Justice Kohli asked Senior Advocate Balbir Singh (for respondents) if the respondents had looked at the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the IMA President. When Singh answered in the negative, the bench adjourned the matter to August 6, giving time to the respondents to file a reply-affidavit in case they wish to. It was clarified that the respondents may assist the court on this aspect if they wish to, but the issue was effectively between the court and the IMA President.

To recap, 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. 

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. 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.

On the last of hearing (May 14), the court expressed dissatisfaction with the apology furnished by Dr Asokan for his remarks in the media interview. The IMA President conveyed an unconditional apology to the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah (which was then hearing the matter). However, the bench was not happy with his conduct.

Since the court slammed State Licensing Authorities (particularly of Uttarakhand) 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.

Appearance: Senior Advocates PS Patwalia (for IMA), Mukul Rohatgi (for Patanjali), Balbir Singh (for Baba Ramdev), Arvind Datar (for an applicant), Siddharth Dave (for an applicant), Shyam Divan (for an applicant) and Kapil Sibal (for applicant-Internet and Mobile Association of India)

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