In a stern development on Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued strong remarks against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev during the contempt proceedings initiated against them. The case pertained to the dissemination of misleading medical advertisements, a violation of an undertaking previously given to the Court.
Both Balkrishna and Ramdev appeared before the Court as directed on March 19, following a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association regarding Patanjali’s advertisements disparaging allopathy and claiming to cure certain illnesses.
Recalling the sequence of events, the Division Bench had earlier issued a Contempt notice to Patanjali Ayurved and its MD on February 27, noting the persistent publication of misleading advertisements despite assurances made by Patanjali’s counsel in November to refrain from such practices.
On March 19, when it was revealed that a reply to the Contempt notice hadn’t been filed, the Court ordered the personal appearance of Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev, who continued to feature in press conferences and advertisements post the undertaking given to the Court.
During the proceedings, the Court observed the absence of an affidavit from Baba Ramdev and emphasized the need for the case to reach its logical conclusion. Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, representing Baba Ramdev, expressed readiness for a personal apology, but the Court insisted on proper affidavits for any apology.
However, after hearing the arguments, the Court granted Baba Ramdev a final opportunity to submit a reply within a week. The matter was scheduled for April 10, with a requirement for the physical presence of both parties.
Additionally, the Court scrutinized the affidavit filed by Patanjali MD Acharya Balkrishna, expressing dissatisfaction with the explanation that the company’s media department was unaware of the Court’s orders.
This development underscores the gravity of the situation, with the Court emphasizing adherence to legal procedures and the importance of accountability in matters of contempt of court.
In a courtroom exchange reflecting the judiciary’s disapproval, Justice Kohli addressed Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing Patanjali, expressing skepticism towards the company’s claim of ignorance regarding court orders. The Justice questioned the adequacy of Patanjali’s internal communication channels, emphasizing that the media department cannot operate independently in such matters. Sanghi conceded to a lapse and expressed regret, but Justice Kohli underscored the gravity of the situation, stating that mere apologies cannot suffice for violating undertakings made to the highest court.
Regarding Patanjali’s stance on the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, Justice Kohli challenged the company’s assertion that the Act was outdated. She rebuked the disregard for established legislation, highlighting the contradiction between Patanjali’s actions and its commitments to the Court. Sanghi attempted to defend the company’s position by citing scientific advancements, but Justice Kohli remained firm, questioning whether Patanjali had pursued legal amendments instead of flouting the law.
The Court’s dissatisfaction extended to Baba Ramdev’s representation. Justice Kohli expressed incredulity that Ramdev, as the co-founder, claimed ignorance of the Court’s directives, especially considering his immediate engagement in public activities following the Court’s orders. The Court raised the serious issue of perjury, accusing Patanjali and Ramdev of falsifying documents and making false statements under oath. Justice Amanullah warned of impending consequences, indicating the initiation of separate perjury proceedings against both parties.
In response to the Court’s rebuke, Sanghi attempted to mitigate the situation, but Justice Kohli reiterated the severity of the matter, making it clear that the Court would not tolerate dishonesty or evasion of legal obligations. This exchange underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding integrity and accountability in legal proceedings, signaling its willingness to take decisive action against any breaches of trust or violations of the law.
