Be Prepared For More Serious Consequences, You Have Not Covered Yourself With Glory: SC Warns IMA After Its President's Interview Questioning Court Was Pointed Out By Patanjali Ayurved

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and its current President Dr. R V Asokan, after it was pointed out by the Senior Counsel for Patanjali Ayurved that the IMA President has given an interview to the Economic Times criticising the Supreme Court, after the last hearing when Court had questioned the conduct of the IMA and its members.

On April 23, the Bench had pulled up the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and 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."

The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was dealing with a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 by the IMA, wherein it alleged that the company engaged in a smear campaign against modern medicine and, at the time, Covid-19 vaccines. On the last hearing, the Court had expressed concerns about the size of the advertisement published by Patanjali Ayurved in daily newspapers issuing a 'public apology'. Subsequently, Patanjali Ayurved published a bigger public apology.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Patanjali submitted that the new apology published in the newspapers was produced five days back.

Why did you e-file it when we asked you to file it physically? This is not in compliance of our order, Justice Kohli said. The Court then spoke to the AoR for Patanjali Ayurved directly and asked why e-filing was done despite being clearly asked to produce the original newspaper. The Court insisted that it had directed that the entire newspaper page had to be produced to show the comparative size of the public apology.

"Your counsel is being very smart with us", Justice Amanullah said on non-filing of the original newspaper. The judge also said that the Counsel for Patanjali did not concentrate on what the Court said on the last occasion.

"More than us, your briefing course wants the client to be here, that is the impression we are getting", Justice Kohli told Mukul Rohatgi.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh also appearing for Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna then told the Court that it was understood that the Court wanted to know the comparative size of the public apology and that it only wanted the original newspaper to be carried to Court.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Balbir Singh then told the Court that the original newspaper pages would be produced before the next date of hearing.

Earlier it was only Patanjali, now names have come, it is a marked improvement, Justice Amanullah said referring to the new apology. Language is adequate, we appreciate that, Justice Amanullah said further.

Thereafter, Mukul Rohatgi submitted, "I have now something else to say, apart from this. I have come across a very disturbing interview given by the President of IMA yesterday. He says, why has the Court turned its fingers on us? The Court is making vague and irrelevant statements. The Court is taking a broadside, we have done a great job, our people have died".

He added, "This is My Lord, a direct interference with the Court's proceedings in this case".

"Bring it on record, we give you this liberty", said Justice Amanullah.

"No President has the right to tell the Supreme Court.... Lordships ask a question... He is having glee that we are getting punished. And when your lordships asked two questions, this is what the answer is", Rohatgi submitted.

"Self-certification doesn't help anybody", Justice Kohli said about the IMA President's remarks.

"I agree, but this is directed against the Court. I breached the Court's order and I am being punished. Here is a man who says when your lordships asked two questions to him, he says.... ", Rohatgi said and proceeded to read his remarks in the interview.

"I was not aware, I will take instructions", said the IMA's Counsel.

"This will be more serious than what we have been doing now. After all this happening and then you do this, when so much water has flown and the proceeding has taken a turn. Be prepared for more serious consequences. More serious because there is a history", Justice Amanullah told the IMA's Counsel.

"If what the other side said is correct, then let us tell you, you have not covered yourself with glory", Justice Kohli.

Rohatgi then told the Court that the interview has been published in the Economic Times and that he is the President of the IMA, not a small functionary.

"I am filing a contempt application", Rohatgi said.

Mukul Rohatgi then sought an exemption from appearance for Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna for the next date of hearing.

The Court allowed an exemption from appearing for the next date of hearing alone, for Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. The Court also directed the registry to accept the original newspaper containing the public apology. The Court then proceeded to consider the case of the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority and its officers, with respect to the affidavits filed by six officers explaining the action taken by them against the illegal advertisements.

After going through the affidavit and interacting with an officer, the Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the affidavit, said that the affidavits are not in compliance with its earlier directions. The Court granted liberty to the officers to file fresh affidavits.

On April 16, the Court had granted one week time to Ramdev, Balkrishna and Patanjali to issue a public apology, though it did not expressly mention that in the Order, and had directed the duo to be present in person on the next date of hearing as well. It is to be noted that on April 10, the Court had refused to accept the second Affidavit tendering an unconditional apology filed by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna over Patanjali Ayurved's alleged "misleading advertisements."

The Court had also pulled up the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for not taking action against Patanjali Ayurved for publishing 'misleading advertisements'. The Court had told the State Licensing Authority, "We will rip you apart," when Senior Counsel Dhruv Mehta appearing for the Authority submitted that it acted under bonafide impression regarding an order passed by the Bombay High Court about the regulation under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.

On April 2, the Bench had directed both Ramdev and Balakrishna to remain present before it on the next date. The Bench also granted them a last opportunity to file their affidavits in the matter in one week. It is to be noted that on March 19, the Court had directed Ramdev and Balakrishna to appear before it for the first time for not replying to the show cause notice issued to them in contempt proceedings.

On February 27, the Court had come down heavily on Patanjali Ayurveda conglomerate for persistently disseminating alleged misleading claims and advertisements targeting modern systems of medicine and restrained it from advertising or branding some of the products manufactured and marketed by it that were meant to address the ailments/diseases/conditions mentioned under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 and the Rules.

The Court had also expressed dissatisfaction with Patanjali Ayurved's then ongoing promotion of such misleading information, despite giving an assurance in November 2023. On the earlier occasion, the Court had orally told Senior Advocate PS Patwalia that it is focused on the cause and on any individual. Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya had then requested that the part of the order where the Court says that the issue is confined to Patanjali be corrected to say that the matter is not confined to Patanjali. Justice Amanullah said that Patanjali's case will be used as a test case, something to begin with for the present and that the exercise will not be limited to Patanjali.

Also, previously, the Bench had expressed its reluctance to turn the matter into a debate of "Allopathy vs. Ayurveda".

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