Apex Court Defers Order On Contempt Notice Issued To IMA President Dr. RV Asokan For Him To Take Steps To Purge Himself Of Contempt

The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered, "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."

At the outset, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for IMA, submitted, "I have filed an apology affidavit regarding my (President's) interview."

"During the interview, two questions were popped at me, I was just answering that. In my affidavit, I have profusely apologized, and said that I am extremely sorry," Patwalia submitted.

Justice Kohli said, "Whoever popped it didn't mean that you fall in a trap, if according to you it was..are you saying it was a trap, that the question was popped up at you and you decided to.."

To this query, Patwalia said, "Yes! Last time also, I informed your Lordships." He further submitted that on the last hearing, the Bench had asked him to publish apology.

"Except your own in-house publication, where have you published?," Justice Kohli asked.

Patwalia submitted that he has done three things since filing the affidavit. "I have taken steps for an unconditional apology and regret, on the first page of the newsletter of the IMA," the Senior Counsel contended.

To this submission, Justice Kohli said, "That's what; your newsletters were not good enough. Has it been published in all those newspapers where your interview was published?"

Patwalia responded in the affirmative.

The Bench stated that the apology needs to be tendered by the IMA President from his own pocket, not the IMA's. The Bench also asked the Senior Counsel whether the public apology shared to all newspapers. "Have you reached out to all of them? " Justice Kohli asked.

"Insert a public apology. Your sending it to PTI doesn't mean that you just wash your hand off it..We can't draw an assumption in your favour just because you say so," Justice Kohli said.

The Bench cautioned the Senior Counsel about more trouble. "The more you want to discuss and debate about it, the more we are convinced that we are not taking the apology," Justice Kohli said.

The Senior Counsel assured the Court, that he would sit with the IMA President and do something about it.

The Bench reminded Patwalia that they had already dispensed the personal presence of the IMA President. "Let him be here," Justice Mehta said.

"We had also said that he (Ashokan) need not log in virtually. Probably we will have to recall that order," Justice Kohli said.

Patwalia sought another chance to discuss this with the IMA President.

"Let him put the public apology in public domain," Justice Kohli said.

Patwalia responded, "Alright. Lordships may give me two weeks. He is apologizing."

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vipin Snghi appeared for Patanjali, and Amicus Curiae Shadan Farast also appeared in the case.

"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 ordered.

Pertinently, 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]