GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday took Patanjali founder Baba Ramdev to task for “gross violation of the undertaking given to the top court” on “misleading” advertisements by the company.
The court also pulled up the Centre, asking why the Ministry of AYUSH “chose to keep its eyes shut when Patanjali was going to town saying there were no remedy for Covid in allopathy,” according to reports.
Ramdev was present in court along with Patanjali Ayurved MD Acharya Balkrishna in connection with the show cause notices issued as to why contempt proceedings would not be initiated against them.
On November 21, 2023, the court had asked the company not to issue any allegedly misleading advertisements or make any “casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine” to the media. On February 27 this year, the court issued a notice to the company and Balkrishna for allegedly flouting the previous order for coming out subsequently with an advertisement and holding a press conference. On March 19, the bench noted that no reply had been filed to the February 27 notice and also decided to issue a notice to Ramdev.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
"We are tendering an unconditional apology. He (Baba Ramdev) is here personally present to apologise," the advocate representing Patanjali told the court.
The court, however, called it "lip service" and said that Patanjali "owes an apology to the whole nation" for their misleading claims. "You have broken every barrier... Now you say that you are sorry," the court said.
The court granted one 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.
The Supreme Court had earlier expressed resentment over Patanjali continuing to publish "false and misleading" advertisements on medicinal cures despite an undertaking that it would halt doing so.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had also issued a notice to Ramdev to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
"How can you be in teeth of our orders?... We had our hands tied earlier but not now (with initiation of contempt proceedings)," the court had told senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Patanjali Ayurved.
The top court made the remarks while hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking action against Baba Ramdev for criticising modern medicine.
After the Supreme Court rap, Patanjali Ayurved, in an affidavit, tendered an unconditional apology, stating that Patanjali's intention was only to exhort the citizens of this country to lead a healthier life by using its products.
ALSO READ: Suspected Morphine Weighing 8.25 Kg Seized At Guwahati Railway Station
The Court was also critical of the Centre over implementing the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable s) Act, 1954 Act against the company and its products. It pointed out that during the Covid pandemic, when Patanjali claimed that its product Coronil is a cure for the disease, the Ayush ministry directed the company not to endorse it as a cure but said it could be a supplement. “What did you do to convey this to the public? In 2020-21, the production continued. Nothing could have moved without (the) Ministry being in the loop.”
The bench pulled up the Centre saying, “Covid monitoring was under the Centre. You had to take action against the state government and in one week register FIR.”
Again in 2021, the court noted that the Ministry wrote to the Uttarakhand licensing authority against a misleading advertisement by the company. In response, the company gave a response to the licensing authority. However, the state agency let off the company with a warning. The bench said, “The 1954 Act does not provide for warning and there is no provision for compounding the offence.”
Even the communication exchanged by Divya Pharmacy (maker of Patanjali products) and the state government was not produced by the Centre in its affidavit before the top court.
The bench added the Uttarakhand licensing department as a party to the proceedings and sought response from both Centre and state department by the next date.