The Supreme Court sternly addressed Patanjali Ayurved for its insufficient apology over continuing misleading advertisements, despite court orders to cease such practices. During a session on Tuesday, Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed dissatisfaction with Patanjali’s explanation, provided in an apology affidavit by Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, claiming ignorance of the court’s directives by its media department.
Justice Kohli emphasized the seriousness of the violation, questioning the sincerity of Patanjali’s apology and highlighting the company’s disregard for its commitments to the court. Justice Amanullah dismissed the apology as insincere and stressed that certain cases must reach a proper conclusion, signaling a limit to the court’s leniency.
The court also accused Patanjali of perjury for alleging document submission that was later found to be fabricated. Furthermore, the justices critiqued Baba Ramdev’s conduct following the court’s initial warnings against misleading advertising, indicating a lack of seriousness in adhering to legal obligations.
Despite Ramdev’s legal representation suggesting the court’s admonitions would serve as a corrective lesson, the bench clarified its role was not educational but to ensure adherence to the law, given the significant influence figures like Ramdev wield.
Both Ramdev and Balkrishna, who were present as per the March 19 court order, were informed their attendance would be required at the next hearing. The court granted a final opportunity for Patanjali to submit a more sincere apology affidavit by the following week, underscoring the imperative of abiding by the law and maintaining constitutional faith. The case is set to continue on April 10.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Patanjali Ayurved faced severe criticism for its handling and presentation of misleading advertisements, particularly those that disparaged modern medicine. The court scrutinized the company’s submission of a casual apology affidavit, underlining the inadequacy of their response to the court’s directives.
Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized that Patanjali, despite its claims, operates as a commercial entity and its actions should not be misconstrued as serving the public interest. The court’s frustration was palpable, particularly with Patanjali’s attempt to attribute the oversight to its media department, a move the Indian Medical Association’s advocate, PS Patwalia, criticized for trying to deflect blame.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, was questioned by the court about the AYUSH Ministry’s lack of public clarification on the status of ayurvedic products as supplements rather than primary treatments, especially during the critical period of COVID-19. The court highlighted the government’s inaction in countering Patanjali’s claims, which starkly disparaged other forms of medicine.
Patanjali’s conduct post-court warnings, including a press conference by Baba Ramdev, was met with disapproval, suggesting a dismissive attitude towards the court’s orders. Despite an in-person apology from Ramdev, the court demanded a more substantial, written apology and criticized the company for its continued contempt of court.
The discussion extended to the larger issue of misleading advertisements by Patanjali and the lack of a significant governmental response. The court’s insistence on a stricter compliance and a more sincere apology reflects its commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting public interest from potentially harmful misinformation.
This ongoing legal battle against Patanjali underscores the judiciary’s role in monitoring corporate practices and ensuring that public health messaging, especially in the context of medicine, remains accurate and responsible. The case continues to evolve, with the Supreme Court granting one last opportunity for Patanjali to submit a satisfactory apology, highlighting the seriousness with which it views the contempt of court and the potential implications for public health misinformation.
