On Wednesday (10th April), the Supreme Court refused to accept Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurveda MD Acharya Balkrishna’s second apology in the misleading advertisements case. Patanjali and its MD along with Ramdev had filed affidavits expressing an “unconditional and unqualified apology” for airing the advertisements in breach of an undertaking given to the Court in November last year.
The bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanudding Amanullah stated that the reason for issuing the “apology on paper” was because their “back was against the wall”.
The Supreme Court directed Patanjali Ayurveda and its representative to be prepared for action in the contempt case, citing the company’s alleged publication of deceptive advertisements despite their undertaking that they would desist from doing so.
“The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of the undertaking, be ready for something next to rejection of affidavit,” Justice Hima Kohli said.
The Supreme Court bench deemed the conduct of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna as deliberate disobedience. “We don’t accept it (apology), we decline to accept this. We consider it a wilful, deliberate disobedience of the undertaking,” the court said.
The Supreme Court stated that the message must go out to society after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi read aloud Baba Ramdev’s affidavit in which he expressed his “unconditional and unqualified” apology.
The “contemnors” sent the affidavits to the media first, the court further noted. The judge noted, “They clearly believe in publicity.”
When Patanjali’s lawyer Rohatgi said, “people make mistakes”, Justice Kohli replied, “Then they suffer. We don’t want to be so generous in this case.” “Why should we not treat your apology with the same disdain as shown to court undertaking? We are not convinced. Now going to turn down this apology,” Justice Kohli further added.
Last week the apex court had expressed dissatisfaction with the earlier affidavit filed by the company, as the affidavit claimed that the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 was “archaic”.
During today’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court that he had advised the lawyers to withdraw the first affidavit, as it was written in conditional terms and asked them to file an unconditional affidavit. He said he was curious to know what he missed in advising.
The court replied that he had done what he could, but the affidavit was not convincing and it was only on paper.
Notably, the Supreme Court also said that Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev tried to evade personal appearance before the Court by making false claims of travel abroad, accusing them of furnishing false air tickets. The court stated that flight tickets had been attached with the affidavits to claim that they were travelling abroad, but the tickets were dated 31 March, when the affidavit was filed on 30 March.
When the concerned lawyer admitted that tickets were issued on a day after the affidavits were sworn, the court stated that the fact remains that on the date when the affidavits were sworn (March 30), there was no such ticket in existence. “Therefore, the assumption is that the respondents were trying to wriggle out of their personal appearance before the Court, which is most unacceptable,” the Court said.
Supreme Court slams Uttarakhand authorities
The Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority came under fire from the top court as well for failing to take action against Patanjali Ayurveda.
“State Licensing Authority has also filed a detailed affidavit trying to explain action taken regarding objectionable ads. We are appalled to note that except pushing file, nothing has been done. In 4-5 years, State Licensing Authority remained in deep slumber,” Justice Hima Kohli said.
The bench also rebuked the Uttarakhand government saying that they deliberately kept their eyes shut.
“The letter you cited said medicines are manufactured by the undersigned companies. It says advertisements are suggestive in nature, this is in teeth of the act. They waive their thumb under your nose and tell you that ad is suggestive and you accept it. They said aim is to have people connected with ayurveda. It is as if they were the first ones to have ayurveda medicines,” the court said.
This comes after Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court and tendered an unconditional apology in regard to misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurveda and said that they undertake to always uphold the majesty of law and justice.
In an affidavit filed before the top court, Baba Ramdev said, “I seek pardon for the aforesaid breach of the statement. I undertake to always uphold the majesty of Law and majesty of Justice.”
Baba Ramdev informed the top court that he sincerely regrets the lapse and he wished to assure that the same will not be repeated in future.
As reported earlier, he also undertook and ensured that the statement shall be complied with in letter and spirit and no such similar advertisements shall be issued. Baba Ramdev further tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology for the press conference held on November 22, 2023.
Acharya Balkrishna said that he undertakes to ensure that such offending advertisements shall not be issued in the future and he will be more vigilant ahead.
The court was dealing with an Indian Medical Association plea seeking to frame guidelines for prohibiting false and misleading advertisements in relation to allopathy and modern medicine.
IMA, a registered Society, has more than 3,30,000 medical doctors as its members all over the country.
The petition also raised the issue that the campaign of misguidance, misinformation and disparagement against the modern system of medicine.
IMA, in its plea, had sought to pass an order directing the Centre and others to immediately take strict and prompt action, in accordance with law, for the violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the repeated acts of omission and commission of Respondent Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. including by publishing advertisements all over the country making illegal and prohibited claims.
