Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna have personally apologized to the Supreme Court, with Patanjali Ltd committing to publishing a public apology.
On Tuesday, April 16, Baba Ramdev, the co-founder of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, appeared before the Supreme Court and offered an unconditional apology for disseminating misleading advertisements and making derogatory remarks against Allopathic medicines, breaching a previous undertaking given to the Court. Acharya Balkrishna, the Managing Director of Patanjali, also tendered a personal apology to the Court. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali, informed the Court of their readiness to issue a public apology to demonstrate contrition.
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah presided over the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev concerning misleading advertisements.
During the hearing, the bench directly engaged with Ramdev and Balkrishna, questioning their actions in defiance of the Court’s undertaking. Ramdev responded to Justice Kohli’s inquiries, expressing regret for their actions and assuring that they would not repeat them in the future. Balkrishna echoed this sentiment before the bench.
The bench adjourned the hearing until April 23 to allow them an opportunity to rectify their actions. The bench recorded in the order:
“Mr. Rohatgi, senior advocate appearing for the proposed contemnors submits that to redeem themselves and demonstrate… they want to take some steps unilaterally. At the request of the respondents 5-7, list on April 23rd.”
On April 2, the Court had rejected the initial affidavit of apology submitted by Patanjali MD, noting its lack of sincerity. Last week (April 10), the Court dismissed the second affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali MD. The Court also observed that Balkrishna and Ramdev had submitted an affidavit with fictitious flight tickets to evade personal appearance before the Court.
Furthermore, the Court criticized the Uttarakhand State authorities for their failure to take action against Patanjali under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.
To summarize recent developments, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah addressed a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali’s advertisements disparaging allopathic medicine and claiming to cure certain diseases.
In this context, the Division Bench had previously issued a Contempt notice to Patanjali Ayurved and Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev for continuing to publish misleading advertisements in violation of an undertaking given to the Court in November of last year.
Background information on previous hearings:
The Indian Medical Association sought directives to 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 promoting the Ayush system while disparaging the Allopathic system.
In August 2022, a Bench led by CJI Ramana issued notices to the aforementioned authorities, including Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, the company co-founded by Baba Ramdev.
Previously, on November 21, 2023, the Court rebuked Patanjali Ayurved for persistently publishing misleading claims and advertisements against modern medical systems. Justice Amanullah issued a stern warning, threatening to impose a fine of Rs 1 Crore for every product falsely claimed to “cure” a particular disease.
Following this, Patanjali Ayurved’s counsel assured the Court that they would cease such advertisements and ensure no casual statements were made in the Press. The Court recorded the undertaking in its order.
Despite this assurance, Patanjali Ayurved continued to publish misleading advertisements concerning medicinal cures, prompting the Court to issue a show cause notice to Patanjali Ayurved and Acharya Balakrishna for contempt of court.
The Court directed Patanjali Ayurved to refrain from advertising or branding products intended to address diseases/disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 in the interim. Further details of this hearing and the subsequent order can be found here.
Following this (on March 19), when the Bench was informed of the non-submission of a reply to the Contempt notice, it directed personal appearance. The Court persisted despite Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi’s objection to summoning Ramdev. Further details of this hearing and the subsequent order can be found here.
Subsequently, the Managing Director of Patanjali submitted an affidavit stating that the contentious advertisements were meant to contain only general statements but inadvertently included offensive sentences. It was further asserted that the advertisements were bona fide and that Patanjali’s media personnel were unaware of the November order (where the undertaking was provided before the Supreme Court). However, the Court expressed reservations about this affidavit, describing it as “perfunctory” and “mere lip service.”
Counsel for petitioner: Senior Advocate PS Patwalia
Counsels for respondents: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Balbir Singh, Vipin Sa
