Supreme Court Rejects Latest Affidavit from Patanjali in Contempt Case over Misleading Medical Ads
On Wednesday (April 10), the Supreme Court dismissed the second affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna in a contempt case related to misleading medical advertisements.
A bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah Khan refused to accept the latest affidavit filed by Patanjali and its MD, which sought unconditional and inappropriate apologies for broadcasting advertisements, breaching an undertaking given to the court last November.
The court also rejected an apology affidavit submitted by Patanjali’s co-founder Baba Ramdev, who is facing contempt proceedings.
The bench told Patanjali’s counsel, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, that the affidavit is merely “on paper” and warned that the proposed contemnors should be ready to face punitive action for violating the undertaking.
Justice Kohli told Rohatgi, “The apology is on paper. Their backs are against the wall. We refuse to accept it; we treat it as a wilful violation of the undertaking given.”
When Rohatgi replied, “People make mistakes,” Justice Kohli retorted, “Then they have to pay. We don’t want to be so magnanimous in this matter.”
Justice Kohli further commented, “Why should we not treat your apology with the same disdain as shown in the court’s proceedings? We are not convinced. We are now going to dismiss this apology.”
At the end of the hearing, Rohatgi stated that the contemnors are ready to tender public apologies. However, the court did not grant any relief.
In a related development, last week, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with Patanjali’s MD’s earlier affidavits because they contained comments that were “antiquated” under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
Today, India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that he had advised lawyers to withdraw the first affidavit as it was conditional and to file an unconditional affidavit. SG further said that he was eager to know what error he made in advising. In response, the bench said that SG did everything he could, but the affidavit was not concrete and was only on paper.
The court said, “Taking into consideration the entire history of the case and the past conduct of the respondents (5-7), we have expressed our displeasure about accepting their latest affidavit.”
Balkrishna and Ramdev attempted to evade personal presence before the court by making false claims about foreign travel
In another interesting turn of events, the court commented that Patanjali’s MD and Baba Ramdev tried to evade personal presence before the court by making false claims about foreign travel.
Upon issuance of a show-cause notice, they applied for exemption by filing an application stating that they were traveling abroad. In order to establish this fact, they submitted copies of some flight tickets as annexures. The court found that although the applications were filed on March 30, the annexed flight tickets, as proof, were booked on March 31, which was “surprisingly coincidental.”
During the previous hearing, the related counsel was required to confront this fact. In the latest affidavit, Balkrishna and Ramdev admitted that the tickets were issued a day after taking the oath of the affidavit and stated that photocopies of the tickets were attached at the time of filing the affidavit.
“The fact is that no such ticket existed on the date (March 30) when the oath was taken on the affidavit. Therefore, it is alleged that the respondents attempted to evade personal appearance before the court, which is highly reprehensible,” the court said.
The court, while observing with “astonishment” that besides forwarding the file, the state licensing authorities of Uttarakhand did nothing and were only “attempting to blame” for “delaying in any way” the proceedings.
The court stated that the State Licensing Authority would submit an affidavit clarifying inaction against Divya Pharmacy for inactivity and despite being aware of the violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act. It says that other officials will also submit an affidavit filing a fresh affidavit, taking clear action against inactivity.
