While Pointing Finger At Patanjali, Four Fingers Are Pointing At You: SC Tells IMA; Expresses Concern About Size Of Patanjali's Public Apology In Newspapers

At the outset, Justice Kohli asked, "You haven't done anything?"

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, on behalf of the proposed contemnors, submitted, "We have published a voluntary public apology."

Justice Kohli said, "Where? Why has it not been filed? Why did you wait for a whole week?"

"The language had to be changed," Rohatgi submitted.

To this, Justice Kohli stated that the same will have to be filed first. "We refuse to take these bundles across the Court. Whatever you want to do, you file it..we can't go through bundles now. Is the advertisement of the same size, that you normally issue in the newspaper?", she asked.

Rohatgi contended, "No, it's not that. But my Lord, I have done it in 67 newspapers, it costs tens of lakhs."

"Okay, we'll look at it. Doesn't it cost the same tens of lakhs when you do a full-page advertisement, we are wondering, we will not say anything till we see it. File it Mr. Rohatgi," Justice Kohli said.

While scheduling the matter for further consideration on April 30, the Court said, "Cut the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. For you to photocopy by enlarging, it may not impress us. We want to see the actual size of the advertisement."

To this, the Senior Advocate Balbir Singh submitted that they will put an additional advertisement of public apology.

"The said advertisements are not on record, needful should be done in two days, It is further stated that additional advertisements shall be issued by the proposed contemnors, as when they are filed, documents shall be filed on record," the Court noted.

Coming to the IMA, the Court said, "The Petitioner needs to put his own house in order first."

The Bench further said, "We are not looking at the Respondent (Patanjali) alone, there are others on the other side, who may not be before us, but after going through the kind of coverage that recently has been brought to our notice of the misrepresenting advertisements for things like food which are for babies, which we understand are under the scrutiny of the Union...We can't let the public be taken for a ride, little children, babies...If that's happening, the Union of India needs to activate itself and so the State Licensing authorities under you...."

During the course of the hearing, the Court also took note of the fact that an Intervention Application has been filed by a person, which is currently under defects before the Registry. The Intervenor has sought imposition of a cost of Rs.1,000 crore on the IMA for filling the Writ Petition.

"An Applicant very keen to support your client (Patanjali). We have, get this impression that this is a proxy battle being fought at your behest. This Applicant wants us to impose cost of rupees one thousand crore on IMA for filing this 'misleading Petition'," Justice Kohli remarked.

On being asked whether a copy of the Intervention Application has been served to all the other parties, the Court got an answer in negative.

"I have nothing to do with it. I have no idea. There are people of all kinds, my Lord," Rohatgi submitted.

Justice Kohli further said, "We are very curious at the timing of this Application. It appears to us more as an 'Interloper' than an 'Intervenor'. So, there is something to be said about this Applicant, but we would rather wait for the objections to be removed, if there are any and have it re-filed."

Rohatgi suggested that cost be imposed on the Intervenor and the Application be rejected. To this, Justice Kohli said, "Let the Counsel, party appear, he is in-person, so we must have him before us, whatever the cost would be we will examine it and let him make his submissions on the next date before us."

The Bench pointedly questioned the Union about a letter issued by an officer of the Union asking to disregard Rule 170 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Court highlighted a letter issued by the AYUSH Ministry in 2023, advising state governments not to take action under this rule. The letter even hinted at the possible withdrawal of Rule 170, which deals with action against misleading advertisements.

The Bench also sought explanations from the government regarding the issuance of this letter and the proposed withdrawal of Rule 170. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing on behalf of the Union of India assured the Court that the government would provide clarifications.

The Court emphasized the need to safeguard consumers against misleading advertisements, particularly those related to medicines and healthcare products. The Court underscored the importance of enforcing laws such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act to protect public health and prevent misinformation.

Furthermore, the Court directed the inclusion of the Central Consumer Affairs Department and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as parties to the case. The Court also instructed all State Licensing Authorities of all States and Union Territories to also be added as parties. "The said Ministries shall file an Affidavit stating the steps taken from the year 2018 onwards and the action taken from such complaints," the Court ordered.

Accordingly, the Court scheduled the matter for hearing the contemnors on April 30 and the larger issue on May 7.

Patanjali Ayurved, has issued a public apology, in a daily newspaper, which reads:

"Patanjali Ayurved fully respects the dignity of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We sincerely apologize for the mistake of publishing advertisements and holding a press conference even after our advocates made a statement in the Apex Court. We are committed to not let such a mistake be repeated ever in the future. We reassure you that we shall remain committed to uphold the constitution and dignity of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

Pertinently, 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 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 also 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]