Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday took Patanjali founder Baba Ramdev to task for “flagrant violation of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court” over the company’s “misleading” advertisements.
The court also pulled up the Center and asked why the AYUSH ministry “chose to turn a blind eye when Patanjali went to town saying there is no cure for Covid in allopathy,” according to reports.
Ramdev was present in court along with Dr. Patanjali Ayurveda, Acharya Balkrishna, in connection with the show cause notices were issued as to why contempt proceedings would not be initiated against them.
On November 21, 2023, the court asked the company not to publish allegedly misleading advertisements or make “casual statements claiming medical efficacy or against any system of medicine” to the media. On February 27 this year, the court issued a notice to the company and Balakrishna for allegedly neglecting the earlier order to subsequently come out with an advertisement and hold a press conference. On March 19, the committee noted that no response had been submitted to the February 27 notice and also decided to issue a notice to Ramdev.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
"We offer an unconditional apology. He (Baba Ramdev) is here in person to apologize," The lawyer representing Patanjali told the court.
But the court called it "lip service" And Patanjali said "I owe an apology to all the people" for their misleading claims. "You broke every barrier… now you say you’re sorry," said the court.
The court gave a last chance to Ramdev and Balakrishna to submit their affidavits in the matter in a week. When publishing the issue for further discussion on April 10, the committee ordered that both remain present before it at the next date.
The Supreme Court had earlier expressed displeasure that Patanjali was continuing to publish "False and misleading" Advertisements for medicinal drugs despite an undertaking that it would stop doing so.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanola also issued a notice to Ramdev to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
"How can you be in the teeth of our orders?… Our hands were tied before, but not now (with the opening of contempt proceedings)," The court told senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali Ayurveda.
The Supreme Court said this while hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking action against Baba Ramdev for criticizing modern medicine.
After the rap in the Supreme Court, Patanjali Ayurveda, in an affidavit, tendered an unconditional apology, stating that Patanjali’s intention was only to encourage the citizens of the country to lead healthier lives by using its products.
Also read: Suspected morphine weighing 8.25 kg seized at Guwahati railway station
The court also criticized the Center for implementing the Drugs and Magic (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 against the company and its products. He noted that during the Covid pandemic, when Patanjali claimed its product Coronil was a cure for the disease, the HRD ordered the company not to approve it as a drug, but said it could be a supplement. “What did you do to convey this to the public? In 2020-21, production continued. Nothing could move without the ministry being on top of things.”
The bench upheld the Center and said, “Covid monitoring was under the Centre. You should have taken action against the state government and within one week register an FIR.”
Again in 2021, the court noted that the ministry approached the Uttarakhand Licensing Authority against misleading advertising by the company. In response, the company gave a response to the licensing authority. However, the state agency released the company with a warning. The bench said: “The 1954 law does not provide a warning and there is no provision for compounding the offense.”
Even the communication exchanged by Divya Pharmacy (maker of Patanjali products) and the state government was not produced by the Center in its affidavit before the Supreme Court.
The committee has added the Uttarakhand Licensing Department as a party to the proceedings and sought a response from the Center and the state department by the next date.
