Patanjali Misleading Ads Case: SC Rejects Ramdev’s Apology, ‘It’s On Paper’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday rejected apologies filed by Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna for the company’s misleading ads and said “we don’t want to be so generous in this case,” asking why it should not treat the apology with the “same disdain as shown to the court undertaking?”

“The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall…We decline to accept your affidavit. We consider what you have done to be wilful, deliberate, repeated violation of our orders,” a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, LiveLaw reported.

The bench also noted that it is not satisfied with the Centre’s reply on the matter. “Why should we not treat your apology with same disdain as shown to court undertaking? We are not convinced. Now going to turn down this apology. Now a message must go to society. We are making it a part of your conduct. What kind of medications have you been coming out with,” Justice Kohli said.

Noting that Ramdev and Balkrishna sent their apologies to the media first, the court said, “Till the matter hit the Court, the contemnors did not find it fit to send us the affidavits. They sent it to the media first, till 7.30 pm yesterday it was not uploaded for us. They believe in publicity clearly.”

The apex court also pulled up the Uttarakhand government for not taking action against Patanjali Ayurved for violation of the law. The court told the Uttarakhand government that it was not going to let it free. “All complaints were forwarded to the government. The licensing inspector remained quiet, there is no report by the officer. The concerned officers should be suspended right now,” the court said.

Asking Uttarakhand state licensing authority about why “we should we not think you are in cahoots with alleged contemnors,”Justice Kohli said, “You are keeping your eyes shut deliberately. You are hand in gloves.”

The court said the state’s officers had done nothing. “We have strong objection to the use of the word ‘bonafide’ for officers. We are not going to take (it) lightly. We will rip you apart,” it said.

“Indian public is as cognizant about alternate medication as it is about the treatment through allopathy…”They (Patanjali) say purpose of advertisement was to keep people connected with Ayurvedic medicines, as if they are the first ones in the world to come up with Ayurvedic medicines,” Justice Kohli said.

The Top Court also rapped Uttarakhand drug authorities asking why no action was taken against the company, despite clear mention of ‘suggestive nature’ of content. “They say purpose of advertisement was to keep people connected with Ayurvedic medicines, as if they are the first ones in the world to come up with Ayurvedic medicines,” Justice Kohli said.

The apex court is hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign against the vaccination drive and modern medicines. On March 19, the 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 Ramdev a show cause notice as 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.

In the November 21, 2023 order, the top court had noted that counsel representing Patanjali Ayurved had assured it that “henceforth there shall not be any violation of any law(s), especially relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it and, further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form”.

The top court had said Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is “bound down to such assurance”.

The non-observance of the specific assurance and the subsequent media statements irked the apex court, which later issued notice to them to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them.