Details Emerge on Ramdev's Supreme Court Appearance and Patanjali's Apologies: A Deep Dive

Tuesday's Supreme Court case warns Ramdev and Ally Balkrishna against demeaning allopathy, chides Uttarakhand government.
Supreme Court scrutinizes Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved for misleading advertisements

Source: aajtak

In the Supreme Court, Patanjali Ayurved's founder yoga guru Ramdev and managing director Balkrishna have voiced a readiness to publicly apologize for misleading advertising. The Court granted them one week—Patanjali must issue a public apology for deceptive ads within seven days. Justices Hima Kohli and Amanatullah were presented for the third time by Ramdev and Balkrishna. Despite this, the Court emphasized that this does not absolve the case. The court has yet to accept the apologies and affidavits submitted on April 2 and 10. Additionally, the Court praised Patanjali's work but stressed that allopathy must not be defamed. Amidst stern words from the Court, Ramdev clarified there was no intention to disrespect the Court. The next hearing is set for April 23.

Discover the full narrative…

The Supreme Court is reviewing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) on August 17, 2022. It accuses Patanjali of negative campaigning against COVID vaccination and allopathy and falsely claiming its Ayurvedic medicines can cure certain diseases. Patanjali, the lodged complaint asserts, propagated that their products could permanently eradicate diseases, including the COVID virus. Furthermore, it's alleged that Patanjali Ayurved ran a disparaging campaign against modern medicine and the COVID-19 vaccination program.

What laws has Patanjali been accused of breaching?

Allegations against Patanjali include violations of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act 1954 and the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act specifies it's erroneous and misleading to claim to wholly cure any disease without scientific proof, constituting a legal violation. The Consumer Protection Act asserts companies cannot conduct false or deceptive promotion. If such actions adversely affect consumer interests, they amount to legal violations. Patanjali aired certain advertisements in print media, purporting to entirely cure diabetes and asthma.

Read:
Why the defiance against court orders?

The lawyer representing Ramdev and Balkrishna on Tuesday stated, 'We once again apologize to the court. We regret our actions and are prepared to publicly apologize to the public.' The bench then queried the senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, when asking about the advertising, clarified the matter wasn't up for comment, yet disclosed the pair weren't yet off the hook. The bench allocated a week for the apology. During the hearing, the bench engaged in dialogue with Ramdev and Balkrishna, inquiring why they defied assurances given to court and orders issued.

'Why was the Supreme Court upset?'

Two affadavits have been filed in court. In one, Ramdev and Balkrishna apologized for their public statements following a verdict on November 21 last year. The bench had been displeased at the pair's media remarks post-assurances to the court. Subsequently, the court issued a notice inquiring whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against them. Prior to this, on April 10, the Supreme Court had deliberated on the case, declining to accept an unconditioned apology. The Court also chastised the Uttarakhand licensing authority for laxity concerning misleading advertisements.

Read: Patanjali's misleading advertisement case: Ramdev and Balkrishna apologize in Supreme Court
What did the Supreme Court say on November 10?

On November 21, 2023, during the proceedings, Justice Amanatullah stated, 'Patanjali must immediately cease all misleading advertisments making unfounded claims.' The Court indicated any such infractions would be taken earnestly, and penalties up to INR 1 crore could be levied per false product claim.

'Questioning Ramdev over the press conference'

Justice Kohli questioned Ramdev over conducting a press conference following the Supreme Court order last November. During the session, Ramdev stated his intention was never to disrespect the court, admitting the previous actions were regrettable and would be mindful in the future. He said, 'It was due to enthusiasm for the work; we didn’t intend to wrong anyone. It won’t happen again.'

'More hearings on April 23; Both to be present'

The court interjected, 'You aren't that innocent. It doesn't seem like your heart has changed. You still stand firm on your stance. We’ll review this case on April 23, and both, Ramdev and Balkrishna, will again be present in court.’ Balkrishna also apologized for the error.

Read: 'We unconditionally apologize for the oversight…,' say Ramdev after Supreme Court’s rebuke on Patanjali's false advertising case
What happened on April 16 in the Supreme Court

Justice Kohli addressed Ramdev, 'We want to understand. Both Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna are present here. You have significant esteem. People look up to you, appreciate your endeavors. You've done much for yoga.' Ramdev, joining hands, said, 'I want to express that for any mistakes made, I apologize unconditionally.'

'Apologies not yet accepted'

Justice Amanatullah asserted, 'You can't demean allopathy. Do your work. You're doing a great job.' The bench indicated after the lawyer's affidavit, a command was issued last November. The bench said, 'You did all this when there was a court order. You weren’t so naive to be unaware of court happenings.' The bench also indicated that such naivety doesn’t work in court. 'If you think your lawyer's apology suffices, we haven't yet decided whether to accept your apology or not.'

Read: The intensifying battle between Ayurveda and Allopathy, doctors' stance hardens against Baba Ramdev
'Judges' frustration over Balkrishna's stance'

- The bench became irate when Patanjali Ayurved Limited's Managing Director Balkrishna claimed Ramdev had no involvement in the company's day-to-day affairs. Justice Amanatullah told Balkrishna, 'You're still stuck in your position. The apology doesn’t seem heartfelt.'

You might also like