'Absolute defiance': SC lambasts Baba Ramdev in Patanjali misleading ads case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 2) came down heavily on yoga guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved managing director Acharya Balkrishna for their “absolute defiance” in not filing proper affidavits of compliance in the misleading advertisement case and breaking “every barrier”.

It also disapproved of the Patanjali MD's statement that the Drugs and Cosmetics (Magic Remedies) Act is “archaic”.

“Not just the Supreme Court, every order passed by the courts across this country has to be respected...this is absolute defiance,” a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

“You have to abide by undertaking given to court and you have broken every barrier,” the bench told Ramdev and the Patanjali MD, who were present in person.

The court refused to accept their earlier apology and their readiness to offer personal apologies on Tuesday. “We are not happy with your (earlier) apology,” said the bench. “Be ready for action,” the court told Ramdev.

The yoga guru’s lawyer said both Ramdev and Balakrishna were ready to personally apologise in the court. “We want to apologise and are ready for whatever the court says,” their lawyer said with folded hands.

Indifferent Centre

The top court wondered as to why the Centre “chose to keep its eyes shut when Patanjali was going to town saying there were no remedy for COVID in allopathy”.

Senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramdev, urged the court to take note of the presence of the yoga guru and his unconditional apology.

What has happened should not have happened, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court and offered to help the counsel for parties to find a solution to the whole issue.

“You should have made sure affidavit is filed in pursuance of your solemn undertakings,” Justice Kohli told the counsel for Balkrishna.

“Sometimes things should reach logical conclusion,” the bench said at the outset of the proceedings when the counsel for Patanjali and others sought some more time for filing the affidavits of compliance.

Last opportunity

The bench granted last opportunity to Ramdev and Balkrishna to file their affidavits in the matter in a week.

While posting the matter for further hearing on April 10, the bench directed that both of them shall remain present before it on the next date. On March 19, the apex court had directed Ramdev and Balkrishna to appear before it after taking exception to the company's failure to respond to the notice issued in the case relating to advertisements of the firm's products and their medicinal efficacy.

The top court had said it deemed it appropriate to issue a show cause notice to Ramdev as the advertisements issued by Patanjali, which were in the teeth of the undertaking given to the court on November 21, 2023, reflect an endorsement by him.

"Both are present?" the bench asked on Tuesday. The counsel appearing for Ramdev said both of them are in the court.

Unqualified apology

The bench observed that advertisements issued by Patanjali are in the "teeth of law" of the land.

Last month, Balkrishna had tendered an unqualified apology to the apex court for advertising the herbal products of the firm claiming their medicinal efficacy in treating several serious diseases and running down other systems of medicine.

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd had assured the top court on November 21, 2023 that it will not violate any law, especially the laws relating to advertising or branding of products.

Earlier order

On February 27, the top court directed Patanjali to stop with immediate effect all electronic and print advertisements of its medicines which give misleading information.

It had also pulled up the Centre for not taking action against the company.

IMA’s charge

The case began in November last year when the court heard the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which accused Patanjali of projecting allopathy and its practitioners in poor light.

However, Patanjali issued advertisements on the same lines even after offering an apology to the Supreme Court, resulting in a contempt action.

The bench expressed displeasure over the non-compliance of its earlier order of February 27, saying this meant that the earlier apology was a mere “lip service”.

(With agency inputs)