SC Reserves Order In Contempt Notices Issued Against Baba Ramdev & Acharya Balakrishna In Patanjali Misleading Advertisements Case, Dispenses Their Appearance
The Supreme Court has reserved its order in the Contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case.
While reserving the Order, the Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, "We are also dispensing their appearance in the matter."
The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), wherein, by an Order dated February 27, 2024, Patanjali was restrained from advertising or branding some of the products manufactured and marketed by it that are meant to address the ailments/diseases/conditions mentioned under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 and the Rules.
Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Patanjali, submitted that the sale of the products that have been banned by the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) has been stopped.
To this Justice Kohli asked, "Have you stopped storing and stocking also? File an Affidavit."
The Senior Counsel responded that there are 5000 branches and that they will file an Affidavit. He sought four weeks time for the same.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union of India suggested that the Affidavit can be filed within 2 weeks and that they don't have to reach out to all 5000 branches.
Accordingly, the Court directed Ramdev, Balakrishna and Patanjali to file an Affidavit in three weeks on the status of storing and stocking of the 14 products that have been banned by the Uttarakhand SLA. The Bench has also dispensed with the appearance of Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna.
Pertinently, on April 23, the Bench had raised concerns about the size of the public apology published by Patanjali. Thereafter, the Ayurved company had again issued a larger public apology.
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]
