Lip service, broke every barrier: SC pulls up Ramdev in misleading ad case

The court also came down on the Centre and asked why it 'chose to keep its eyes shut' when Patanjali claimed that allopathy medicine offered no protection against Covid-19

The Supreme Court on Tuesday termed as “lip service” the apology tendered by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna in connection with the contempt notice issued to them for flouting its directions in the misleading advertisement case.

The apex court, however, gave them a last opportunity to file fresh responses.

The court also slammed the Central government and asked why it “chose to keep its eyes shut” when Patanjali claimed that allopathy medicine offered no protection against Covid-19.

“You yourself said that the product they come out with cannot be backed. What did you do to publicise the same with the common public,” the court asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre.

The court sought an explanation from the Centre over why action was not taken against state governments.

Balkrishna and Ramdev were present before the apex court on Tuesday after the court’s direction of March 19.

While Balkrishna had placed his apology before the court, Baba Ramdev’s affidavit was not on record. The court said this made it clear that the matter has to be taken to its “logical conclusion”.

Both have been told to appear before the court on April 20 and Ramdev has been directed to file his reply in the same period.

A bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah were hearing the petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali’s advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases.

The court had on February 27 issued a contempt notice to Patanjali Ayurved and its MD Acharya Balakrishna for flouting earlier orders and continuing to propagate misleading claims about curing diseases with the company’s products.

While the court banned Patanjali advertisements with misleading claims, it came down heavily on the central government saying it was ‘’sitting with eyes closed’’ as the entire country was ‘’taken for a ride’’.

In November 2023, the company had told the court that no such claims would be made in its advertisements in future.

Following this, on March 19, when the court was informed that the reply to the contempt notice was not filed, it went on to pass an order seeking the personal appearance of Balakrishna and Ramdev.

Ramdev had held a press conference after the court’s last hearing on November 21, 2023, saying remedies for blood pressure were ‘’lies spread by allopathy’’.

Senior advocate Balbir Singh, who appeared for Ramdev, told the court on Tuesday that the parties were present and ready to apologise in person.

 

On this, the court said if the parties wanted to apologise, then they should have filed proper affidavits.
 

The bench also took exception to the explanation given in Balkrishna’s affidavit that the media department of the company was not aware of the Supreme Court’s order.  

Justice Kohli said, “Your regret may not be sufficient for the court. It amounts to the gross violation of the undertaking given to the highest court of the land, which is not to be taken lightly.”

Justice Kohli went on to say that this apology is not persuading this court and is more of a “lip service.”

The court on February 27 had temporarily restrained Patanjali Ayurved from advertising or branding its products which are meant to address the diseases/disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.

However, the affidavit filed by the MD stated that this Act was “in an archaic state” to which Justice Kohli said, “Shall we assume that every Act which is archaic should not be enforced in law? At this moment we are wondering that when there is an Act that governs the field, how can you violate it? Your advertisements are in the teeth of that Act.”

“To top it all, and that is adding insult to the injury, you give a solemn undertaking to this court and you violate it with impunity?”

The court categorically refused to accept the apology and termed it as “perfunctory.”

The court also warned Ramdev and Balkrishna of perjury.