"Font Is Miniscule": Supreme Court Directs IMA President Dr RV Asokan To File Physical Copies Of Apologies Published In 20 Publications Of The Hindu

The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed displeasure over the size of the apology published in the newspaper. "The excerpt filed by Dr. Asokan is illegible inasmuch as the font is miniscule," the Bench said.

At the outset, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for IMA, submitted that the apology had been published in 20 newspapers.

Justice Mehta asked about the size of the apology. "Give us the physical copy of the newspaper where the apology has been published. We will not wait an inch before seeing the physical copy. Show us," Justice Kohli said.

Patwalia contended, "My interview never went to the press (newspaper). It went through the Press Trust of India (PTI)."

"Wherever it went. It caused damage. Don't give us an excuse," Justice Kohli said.

Patwalia further submitted that Asokan is a Doctor, he is ready to apologize in Court as well.

The Court further emphasized that apologizing in this context was not a favour to the Court, with Justice Mehta remarking, "By apologizing, Asokan is not obliging anybody."

On perusal of the apology published in one of the newsapapers, Justice Kohli said, "It is less than 0.10 m. We can't read it."

The Court noted that the excerpt filed by Dr. Asokan is illegible inasmuch as the font is minuscule. The Bench stressed that the font size used was too small to be considered a legitimate public apology.

"Senior Advocate Patwalia appears for IMA President and states that a tabulated list of unconditional apology tendered by IMA President states that advertisement has been published in 20 publications. The excerpt of the apology filed before us is illegible in as much as the font is miniscule. Counsel for IMA President is directed to file physical copies of 20 publications of The Hindu where the publication of apology has been done. Needful shall be done within 1 week, with a copy to the other side," the Court said.

During the hearing, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shadan Farast also appeared.

The Bench also considered the issue of misleading health claims by FMCG companies through advertisements done by them. The amicus informed the Bench that some States/UTs have not filed the requisite affidavit as per the last orders of the Court. He informed the Bench that Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu and Sikkim have not filed the affidavit.

The Bench further ordered, "Learned amicus curiae hands over the note of today's proceedings and points out that except for State of Arunachal Pradesh, Union Territory of Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep, and the State of Sikkim, all other States have complied with an order of June 23, passed by this court. Amicus also points out that only 10 states have complied with the order passed on July 30. The last opportunity to comply in two weeks is granted."

Pertinently, on August 6, the Court had deferred order in show cause contempt notice issued to the IMA President. "After addressing the submission for some time, Mr. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, appearing for the proposed contemnor (Asokan), states that orders may be deferred on the contempt petition initiated against him by this Court to enable the proposed contemnor to take appropriate steps to purge himself of the contempt," the Court had noted. "Without making any observations on the submissions made before this Court today, at the request of learned Senior Counsel, list on August 27," the Bench had ordered.

It is to be noted that on August 13, the Court discharged the Contempt Notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case. While closing the contempt proceedings against the duo, the Court had said that it is accepting the unconditional apology tendered by them. The Court had also warned them not to violate Court's orders in future. The Court had underscored that an undertaking, whether made explicitly in writing or orally and recorded in the court order, holds the same force as a judicial order. Breaching such an undertaking is considered equivalent to contempt of court, similar to violating an injunction order. "An undertaking given to the Court has the same force as an order of the Court and breach thereof would amount to contempt in the same manner as a breach of an injunction," the Bench had ruled.

On July 9, the Court had said that its earlier order containing directions for self-declaration to be submitted by the advertisement industry should not adversely suffer on account of its directions. The Court had also appointed Advocate Shadan Farasat as an amicus for the limited purpose of collating all the data presented by states and presenting them before the Court. The Bench had also requested the Centre to convene a meeting with stakeholders and senior officials of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to resolve issues and difficulties faced by advertisers.

Earlier, on May 14, the Court had refused to accept the unconditional apology of the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Dr. R. V. Asokan, for his press interview containing remarks against the Supreme Court during the pendency of IMA's plea against Patanjali Ayurved with respect to misleading advertisements. Earlier, the Court had come down heavily on the President of IMA. The Court had said that all intention is shown by Dr. Asokan's conduct and had also inquired why no public apology has been made yet. The Bench had also reserved order in the Contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna in the case. The Court had also called for comradery between Allopathy and Ayurved.

On May 7, the Bench had issued notice to the present President of the IMA, impleaded him as a party to the plea filed by IMA against Patanjali Ayurved, and directed him to file an Affidavit. Earlier, the Court had pulled up the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and had said, "While the Petitioner is pointing fingers at Patanjali, those other four fingers are pointing at you, because members of your association have been busy endorsing medicines to their patients, left, right and centre."

In related news, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had issued a press release stating that in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 645/2022-Indian Medical Association & Anr. vs. . Union of India & Ors, requiring all advertisers and advertising agencies to furnish a 'Self-Declaration Certificate' before publishing or broadcasting any advertisement, the Ministry had introduced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal for TV and Radio Advertisements and on the Press Council of India's portal for Print and Digital/Internet Advertisements. This portal was activated on June 4, 2024.

Cause Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022]