In a significant setback for yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved's managing director Balkrishna, the Supreme Court (SC) on April 10 rejected their affidavits offering unconditional apologies for the publication of "misleading" advertisements.
The court asserted that it was not oblivious to the situation and noted that the apologies only surfaced after they were "caught on the wrong foot". The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for April 16.
Furthermore, the court strongly rebuked the State Licensing Authority for its lack of action regarding the issue, emphasising that it will not tolerate such negligence. In an uncommonly stern admonishment, the bench warned, "We will tear you apart. Are you even committed to your responsibilities? You're merely acting as a conduit."
Also Read: Not 'so generous' to accept apologies: SC pans Ramdev, Balkrishna in Patanjali ads case
Additionally, the court criticised the Uttarakhand government for failing to address the violations committed by Patanjali Ayurved, expressing disappointment in its lack of action.
Here’s a brief timeline of the Patanjali misleading advertisement case:
August, 2022:
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) initiated legal action by filing a petition in the Supreme Court following Patanjali's publication of an advertisement titled ‘Misconceptions Spread By Allopathy: Save Yourself And The Country From The Misconceptions Spread By Pharma And Medical Industry’. The petition highlighted instances where Ramdev referred to allopathy as a “stupid and bankrupt science” and made claims about allopathic medicine's role in COVID-19 deaths.
November 21, 2023:
The Supreme Court conducted the first hearing on the petition. Justice Amanullah verbally warned Patanjali, cautioning against claiming their products could completely “cure” diseases. He threatened to impose a penalty of Rs 1 crore on each product making such claims. Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, representing Patanjali, assured compliance with advertising laws and refrained from making casual statements against any system of medicine.
Also Read: Patanjali's apology: Baba Ramdev vows compliance after Ad scandal
The IMA petition also underscored a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Ministry of AYUSH and the Advertising Standards Council of India in January 2017, prohibiting misleading ads.
January 15, 2024:
An anonymous letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India and Justice Amanullah raised concerns about Patanjali's continued publication of false and misleading advertisements.
February 27, 2024:
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsannudin Amanullah issued a contempt notice to Patanjali Ayurved and its MD Acharya Balakrishna for violating previous orders. Justice Amanullah expressed frustration over the delay in action, stating, “The entire country has been taken for a ride! For two years, you wait, when the Drugs Act says this is prohibited." The court imposed a blanket ban on further advertising or branding of Patanjali medicinal products until further notice.
March 19, 2024:
During the hearing, it was revealed that Patanjali had not responded to the contempt notice. The court then demanded the personal appearance of Balakrishna and Ramdev and made the Uttarakhand government a party to the case.
March 21, 2024:
Balakrishna issued an unqualified apology to the Supreme Court concerning alleged misleading advertisements.
April 2, 2024:
The Supreme Court criticised Ramdev and Balakrishna, dismissing their apology as “lip service”. The court demanded a proper explanation affidavit, stating that the previous apology was incomplete and insufficient.
April 9, 2024:
Ramdev and Balakrishna submitted an unconditional apology before the Supreme Court, acknowledging the gravity of their actions.
April 10, 2024:
The Supreme Court rejected the apology, stating, “The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, considering it a deliberate violation of undertaking." The bench emphasised the importance of suffering consequences for violating court orders and criticised the delayed submission of the affidavit, accusing Patanjali of seeking publicity rather than genuine remorse.
Follow us
