Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on April 23 asked Patanjali Ayurveda whether the public apology issued by the company in various newspapers was as big as the advertisements they circulated in the past. The investigation came during the hearing of a contempt case against Patanjali Ayurveda, its CEO Acharya Balakrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev for publishing misleading medical advertisements in violation of an undertaking given to the Supreme Court in November last year.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanola raised the question while considering the case. Patanjali Ayurveda published advertisements in certain newspapers on April 22, apologizing for "A mistake of publishing advertisements and holding a press conference even after our lawyers made a statement in the Supreme Court."
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali, informed the committee about the apology advertisements and added that they were published in 67 newspapers. Both Ramdev and Balakrishna were personally present in the court.
However, Justice Kohli questioned the magnitude of the apology compared to Patanjali’s previous advertisements. "Is the apology the same size as your ads?" she asked. Rohatgi replied that the apology was issued "tens of lakhs," To this Judge Cooley responded, "Does it cost those tens of lakhs of rupees for the full page ads you posted? we wonder"
The judge adjourned the hearing until April 30, ordering Patanjali’s lawyers to provide a copy of the apology ads and chiding them for not producing them during the hearing. "Cut out the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. If you can zoom in, it might not impress us. We want to see the actual size of the ad. When you issue an apology, it doesn’t mean we have to look at it under a microscope," This is what Judge Kohli ruled.
The court also indicated its intention to look into the larger issue of misleading health claims by fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies, implicating the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as parties to the case. Additionally, the bench sought an explanation from the Union government regarding a letter issued by the Ministry of AYUSH, advising states to refrain from taking action against the advertisement of AYUSH products in accordance with Regulation 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Also Read: UPSC Announces List of Qualified Candidates for Integrated Defense Services Examination (II), 2023
The bench further noted that the petitioner, the Indian Medical Association (IMA), should do so "tidy up the house" Due to complaints about allegedly unethical conduct by doctors who are members of IMA. She ordered that the Authority be added as a party to the case.
In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had refused to accept the apology affidavits filed by Patanjali and Ramdev, noting that they were not unqualified or unconditional. The Supreme Court also reprimanded the Union Government for not taking action against the claims of curing the Corona made by Patanjali with "Coronil" product during the epidemic.
