The trial court issued a non-bailable warrant against Ramdev and Balkrishna on February 1 for failing to appear at court hearings.
Patanjali Founders Move Kerala Court to Recall Non-Bailable Arrest Warrant in Misleading Ads Case
Patanjali Ayurved’s promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, have filed an application before a Kerala trial court seeking the recall of a non-bailable arrest warrant issued against them for failing to appear at a court hearing earlier this month. The case, Drug Inspector, Palakkad v. M/s Divya Pharmacy, concerns allegations of misleading advertisements by Patanjali’s affiliate, Divya Pharmacy.
The duo has invoked Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which grants courts the discretion to exempt accused individuals from personal appearances and allow legal representation instead.
The Judicial First-Class Magistrate-II in Palakkad initially issued a bailable warrant against them after they failed to attend a hearing on January 16 despite being summoned. When they again failed to appear on February 1, the court escalated the matter by issuing a non-bailable warrant and scheduled the next hearing for February 3, later adjourned to February 6. Their application to recall the warrant and seek exemption from physical appearance is also set for hearing today.
The case stems from a complaint by the drugs inspector in Palakkad, alleging that Divya Pharmacy’s advertisements violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Similar cases have been registered across Kerala, accusing Divya Pharmacy of publishing advertisements that disparage modern medicine, including allopathy, and making unsubstantiated medical claims. A related case is also pending before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court in Kozhikode.
Patanjali and its founders have faced increasing legal scrutiny over misleading advertisements. The issue gained national prominence when the Indian Medical Association (IMA) approached the Supreme Court, prompting the apex court to temporarily ban Patanjali’s advertisements and issue contempt notices against Ramdev and Balkrishna. The Court criticized Patanjali for misleading consumers by claiming its medicines cure diseases without empirical evidence.
Following an apology from Ramdev and Balkrishna, the Supreme Court ordered them to publish public apologies in newspapers. During the proceedings, the Court also reprimanded the Central government for failing to enforce the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, against Patanjali. In August 2024, the Supreme Court closed the contempt case.
This latest development in the Palakkad trial court adds to the ongoing legal challenges faced by Patanjali and its promoters.
