'What about people who took Patanjali medicines...': SC refuses to accept Ramdev's apology

Baba Ramdev. FILE.

The Supreme Court declined to accept an “unconditional apology” from Patanjali Ayurved’s co-founder and yoga guru Ramdev for not adhering to the undertaking given to it in the misleading advertisement case.

Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd’s managing director Balkrishna, on Tuesday, submitted an untendered apology to the apex court, seeking pardon in the case.

The court also came down heavily on the Uttarakhand government for being hand-in-glove with errant licensing officers while failing to take action against misleading ads published by Patanjali Ayurved.

Top 15 quotes from SC’s hearing on Patanjali Ayurved ads case

1 – “The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking,” an SC bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said

2 – “Tendering apology is not enough. You should suffer the consequences for violating the court’s order. We do not want to be generous in this case,” the bench said

3 – “Till the matter hit the Court, the contemnors did not find it fit to send us the (fresh apology) affidavits. They sent it to the media first. Till 7:30 pm yesterday it was not uploaded for us. They believe in publicity clearly,” Justice Kohli said

4 – After reading out the affidavits, Justice Amanullah said: “You are defrauding the affidavit. Who drafted it, I am surprised”

5 – Justice Amanullah asked if the apology is “even heartfelt” to which senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Patanjali founders, said: “What else needs to be said, my lords, we will. He is not (a) professional litigant. People make mistakes in life”

6 – After the lawyers and officers admitted that mistakes were committed and that corrective measures would be taken, the SC said: “What about all the faceless people who have consumed these Patanjali medicines stated to be cured diseases which cannot be cured? Can you do this to an ordinary person?”

7 – The Supreme ordered all officers who held posts as district Ayurvedic and Unani officers who held posts from 2018 till now to file replies on actions taken by them. The matter will be heard next on April 16

8 – Tearing into the Uttarakhand licensing authority for not acting against Patanjali for long, the apex court said: “We are appalled by the action of the State Licensing Authority and it shows nothing apart from pushing the files and the clear attempt by State Licensing Authority was there to delay the matter”

9- “The State Licensing Authority remained in deep slumber and the person who holds the position of the Joint Director is holding the post since 9 months and it is enough to be aware of the matter. The predecessor is also complicit in the case and he is to file an affidavit explaining the conduct on his part when misleading ads were being given by Divya Pharmacy (Patanjali) in violation of the Act. The disdain shown by Divya Pharmacy to the warnings of the State Authority is apparent from tone and tenor of the reply,” the court said

10 – The SC told senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the State, “Mr Dhruv Mehta.. what did the officers do apart from pushing files…strong objection to resorting to bona fide of the officers, we will not take it lightly. We will rip you apart on bona fide”

11 – “In 2021, the ministry wrote to the Uttarakhand licensing authority against a misleading advertisement. In response, the company gave a response to the licensing authority. However, the authority let off the company with a warning. The 1954 Act does not provide for warning and there is no provision for compounding the offence,” the court said

12 – “This has happened six times, back and forth back and forth, the licensing inspector remained quiet. There is no report by the officer,” the court told the state

13 – “The person appointed subsequently acted the same way. All those three officers should be suspended right now,” it said, adding that the licensing authority was “in cahoots with the contemnors,” it further said

14 – “You are acting like a post office. Did you take legal advice? Shameful of you. Why don’t we agree that you are hand-in-glove with Patanjali,” the court asked the authority, adding, “you have being playing with people’s life”

15 – When the Uttarakhand counsel told the court that they would take action, Justice Kohli said: “Thank God, now you have woken up at last and realise that there is a statute existing.”

On February 27, the Supreme Court directed Patanjali Ayurved to stop all electronic and print advertisements of its medicines giving “misleading” information with immediate effect.

The case began in November last year when the apex court while hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), cautioned Patanjali against making “false” and “misleading” claims in advertisements about its medicines.

The IMA has pointed out several advertisements by Patanjali which allegedly projected the allopathy and the doctors in a poor light, saying that “disparaging” statements have also been made by firms, engaged in the production of ayurvedic medicines, to mislead the general public.

In two separate affidavits filed in the Supreme Court, Ramdev and Balkrishna have tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” for the “breach of the statement” recorded in the November 21, 2023 order of the court.

In the November 21 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.

With inputs from agencies