Patanjali misleading ads: SC exempts Ramdev, Balkrishna from personal appearance in next hearing

Acharya Balakrishna and Baba Ramdev

The Supreme Court on April 30 directed Patanjali to file the original page of the newspaper that contains unqualified public apology for violating the orders of the court. The court was hearing the contempt petition pertaining to misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved. Registry has been directed to take it on record when it is filed. The Supreme Court also agreed to exempt Patanjali Ayurved's promoter Ramdev and managing director Balkrishna from personal appearance only for the next hearing.

A bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah pulled up Patanjali’s lawyers for not filing original copies of the public apology. The apex court said it had asked them to file the original papers of the apology; however, according to the court this was not done.

Patanjali’s lawyer said there are a total of 322 apologies in newspapers and that they are voluminous and it would have been difficult to file.

The top court also noted that there has been a marked improvement in the attitude of Patanjali management. “There has been a marked improvement. There was only Patanjali earlier, now there are names. We appreciate that. They have understood,” said SC.

Patanjali’s lawyer Mukul Rohatgi also flagged IMA president’s interview, which criticised the SC’s criticism of private doctors.

The apex court said it will take care of this and noted that this is 'serious'. SC told IMA’s lawyer: “You have not covered yourself with glory. You will have to explain how you can decide what we can do.”

The court also pulled up the Uttarakhand government, where Patanjali Ayurved is based, for not doing enough.

“Long and short is that when you want to move, you move like lightning! And when you don't want to you don't. In three days flat you have done all that you needed to do! But you should have done all that much earlier," the court said.

SC also said they had asked for details of what was done against Patanjali in the nine-month stint of the officer.

On April 23, the court asked the duo if the public apology they published recently in the newspapers were as big as the advertisements the company publishes.

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for them, responded to this by stating that they were not, as running advertisements on newspapers were expensive. The bench also questioned if the apology was placed in a prominent place in the newspaper or if it has been placed in 'classified' section.

The court has come down hard on the duo in previous hearings, refusing to accept their apologies.

Saying it didn't want to be 'generous' in the case, the two-judge bench said on April 10, "We do not accept it (unconditional apology). We decline to. We consider it a wilful, deliberate disobedience of the undertaking".

It ordered all the officers who served as district Ayurvedic and Unani officers in Haridwar, the company's headquarters, since 2018 to submit actions taken by them.

The court on March 19 asked Ramdev and Balkrishna to appear personally to response to contempt proceedings for continuing to run misleading advertisements.

The court issued a contempt notice against Patanjali and Balkrishna for publishing advertisements of products in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and its Rules.

The orders were passed on a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA).