GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on April 23, asked Patanjali Ayurved whether the public apology published by the company in various newspapers was as large as the advertisements they had previously circulated. The inquiry came during the hearing of a contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev for publishing misleading medical advertisements in violation of an undertaking given to the Supreme Court in November last year.
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah posed the question while considering the case. Patanjali Ayurved had published advertisements in certain newspapers on April 22, expressing apology for the "mistake of publishing advertisements and holding a press conference even after our advocates made a statement in the apex court."
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali, informed the bench about the apology advertisements, adding that they were published in 67 newspapers. Both Ramdev and Balkrishna were personally present in court.
However, Justice Kohli questioned the size of the apology compared to Patanjali's earlier advertisements. "Is the apology the same size as your advertisements?" she asked. Rohatgi replied that the apology cost "tens of lakhs," to which Justice Kohli responded, "Does it cost the same tens of lakhs of rupees for the full-page advertisements you published? We are wondering."
The bench adjourned the hearing until April 30, directing Patanjali's lawyers to provide a copy of the apology advertisements and reprimanded them for not producing them during the hearing. "Cut the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. For you to photocopy by enlarging, it may not impress us. We want to see the actual size of the ad. When you issue an apology, it does not mean that we have to see it under a microscope," Justice Kohli stated.
The court also expressed its intention to explore the larger issue of misleading health claims made by Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) companies, impleading the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as parties to the case. Additionally, the bench asked for an explanation from the Union Government regarding a letter issued by the AYUSH Ministry, advising States to refrain from taking action against the advertisement of AYUSH products as per Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The bench further noted that the petitioner, the Indian Medical Association (IMA), should "put its house in order" due to complaints of alleged unethical conduct by doctors who are IMA members. It directed that the IMA be added as a party to the case.
In previous hearings, the Supreme Court had refused to accept the affidavits of apology filed by Patanjali and Ramdev, noting that they were not unqualified or unconditional. The Supreme Court also chided the Union Government for not taking action against the COVID cure claims made by Patanjali with its "Coronil" product during the pandemic.
