IMA chief faces heat as SC rejects apology for interview on Patanjali case

With the tables turned in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case, it was the Indian Medical Association (IMA) president's turn to face the ire of the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 14) for his remarks against the court in a media interview. Incidentally, it was the IMA that had dragged Patanjali Ayurved to court.

Order reserved on contempt notice

During the hearing, the apex court reserved its order on the contempt notice issued to yoga guru Ramdev, his aide Balkrishna, and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that the firm’s counsel had sought time to file the affidavit indicating the steps being taken to recall the ads of the Patanjali products whose licences have been suspended. The Bench said the affidavit should be filed within three weeks.

The Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) had earlier told the apex court that the manufacturing licenses of 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Divya Pharmacy have been “suspended with immediate effect”.

Court rejects Asokan’s apology

During the hearing, IMA president RV Asokan unconditionally apologised to the Bench for his statements made against the apex court in a recent interview to news agency PTI wherein he answered questions about Patanjali Ayurved’s misleading advertisements case.

While hearing the matter on May 7, the top court had termed Asokan’s statements as “very, very unacceptable”.

On Tuesday, Justice Kohli told Asokan, “You can’t sit on a couch giving an interview to the press and lampooning the court.” The Bench told the IMA’s counsel that at this stage, the court was not inclined to accept the affidavit of apology tendered by the IMA president, saying it was “too little too late”.

Need for “self-restraint”

The court said that while it was always ready to uphold the freedom of speech, it expected more “self-restraint” from Asokan. “We would have expected more sense of responsibility from you... You can’t vent your feelings against the court in the press like this,” the court said.

To the unconditional apology offered by Asokan, the Bench said it was not satisfied with his affidavit and asked why he had not issued a public apology. “Why did you not make amends if you truly wanted to apologise? What did you do to redeem yourself after the interview? Tell us,” said the Bench, adding that it did not see “self-restraint” in his interviews.

We rarely take action: SC

The Bench pointed out that judges, despite the criticism they face, act with a sense of responsibility. “(Despite) The amount of criticism judges face, why don’t they react? Because personally we don’t have much of an ego; we are magnanimous. We are entitled to take action, but very rarely we do," the court said.

“You cannot just sit on a couch and say anything about the court. What would you have done if the other side made this kind of comments? You would have come running to this Court,” it said.

The apex court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine. The next hearing in the matter will be on July 9.

(With agency inputs)