The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali managing director Balkrishna to submit copies of newspaper pages that show the actual size of their published apologies for misleading previous advertisements and a press conference that went against the court’s order, seeking to verify the sincerity and visibility of the unqualified apology issued by the two in a contempt case.
A bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah took on record the statement of the lawyers representing the leaders of the Patanjali Ayurved empire that they would produce copies of newspaper pages that demonstrate the extent of their published apologies, wherein they expressed remorse over their actions that included the promotion of their Patanjali products in ways found misleading by the court.
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime, anywhere. Explore now!
“Did you file the original copies? Why does the registry have to scan it and put it in files? This is not the compliance of our order. We asked to file as it is…There is too much of a communication gap it seems. We raise our hands now…looks like the counsel want their clients (Ramdev and Balkrishna) to appear more than we want them to,” the court remarked, referring to its previous order focussing on the size and visibility of the apology.
On April 23, the bench told Patanjali’s legal team that the apology must not be one that needs to be seen by a “microscope”, highlighting the possible discrepancy in the scale between Patanjali’s widespread misleading advertisements claiming miracle cures and their comparatively inconspicuous apology published in newspapers a day before the last hearing. A fresh apology was published in various publications on April 24.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramdev and Balkrishna, informed the court that a more prominently displayed apology was published in over 300 publications on April 24, adding all the newspaper pages would be submitted in the court within two days.
Responding, the bench gave them a “last opportunity” to properly bring on record the published apology while expressing satisfaction that the latest apology has named Ramdev and Balkrishna apart from Patanjali.
“For the first time, names have been taken…We appreciate the language. For the first time, appropriate steps have been taken,” observed the bench, as it excused Ramdev and Balkrishna from personally appearing in the court on the next hearing on May 14 following their lawyers’ request.
The bench also took note of Rohatgi’s complaint against RV Asokan, president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), about an interview given to news agency PTI in the wake of the April 23 order of the top court broadening its judicial scrutiny into deceptive advertisements to include “alleged unethical practices” among doctors practising modern medicine.
In the interview, Asokan criticised the top court for its approach towards practitioners of modern medicine, asserting that scrutiny does not “behove the Supreme Court to take a broadside against the medical profession of the country,” especially considering the sacrifices made during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The bench allowed Ramdev’s lawyers to bring this interview on record, potentially adding a new dimension to the ongoing legal proceedings.
“This self-certification does not help. Be prepared for more serious consequences if you have said all this…You haven’t covered yourself in glory if what the other side says is true. This is something for you to explain how you decide which way we should we go?” the bench asked the lawyers for IMA.
IMA is the complainant in the case against Patanjali and has demanded contempt action against Ramdev and Balkrishna for violating the court’s earlier directives on misleading advertisements and an undertaking given by Patanjali.
During the proceedings, the court also perused the affidavits filed by various authorities in the Uttarakhand government, including the one filed on Monday apprising the bench of the suspension of manufacturing licences for 14 Patanjali products and seeking the registration of a criminal case against Ramdev and Balkrishna over misleading claims and deceptive advertising.
All the action has come at the prodding of the court, a fact that did not escape the bench’s attention.
The bench highlighted the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority’s (SLA’s) sudden responsiveness after years of negligence, criticising the department for prolonged inaction against Patanjali.
“When you want to move, you move like lightning. And when you don’t, you don’t…You managed to do in three days what should have been done much earlier. How do you explain six years of your inaction after you received a complaint from the Ayush ministry? What have you done in discharge of your public duty?” it asked the SLA, pointing out that the SLA seemed to acknowledge its responsibilities only after the court’s intervention.
Representing the SLA, senior counsel Dhruv Mehta detailed the actions taken and mentioned that the central government’s AYUSH ministry had been informed about the suspension of specific Patanjali products. “Now he realises his power. In one day, he realises his power,” the bench retorted, commenting on the sudden burst of activity from the authority.
The court was critical of the SLA’s affidavit, noting it lacked details of prior actions and seemed to repeat earlier statements verbatim, which suggested a casual approach to the serious issue.
Questioning the vigilance claimed in the affidavit and the actual oversight performed by the SLA, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the oversight and promptness of actions described by the previous officers employed as the SLA as well as the drug inspector.
The court concluded that it seemed the authorities only took proper legal action after the court’s prompting in its order on April 10 while permitting the filing of additional affidavits by the state government officers by May 14.
In an affidavit submitted on Monday, the Uttarakhand SLA said the licences for 14 Patanjali products were suspended on April 15 for violating provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (DCA) and related rules. The affected products include Swasari Gold, Swasari Vati, Bronchom, and Patanjali Drishti Eye Drop, among others. The SLA noted that Patanjali’s explanations regarding the efficacy and benefits of these products were unsatisfactory, and the company was running misleading advertisements on social media platforms.
According to the affidavit, a drug inspector in Haridwar filed a criminal complaint against Ramdev, Balkrishna, Divya Pharmacy, and Patanjali under the Drug and Magic Remedies (DMR) Act. The SLA has also instructed all Ayurvedic and Unani medicine factories in Uttarakhand to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
The court has admonished Patanjali for spreading misinformation that could undermine public trust in the health care system and recorded an undertaking by the company in November 2023 to stop running misleading advertisements and making disparaging statements against modern medicine.
However, IMA presented evidence of Patanjali’s continued violations, leading the court to call Ramdev and Balkrishna to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt. The court has not found their apology affidavits – two filed so far – satisfactory or bona fide.
