The Aryavarth Express
Agency(New Delhi): On April 10, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the second affidavit of apology from Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna concerning contempt charges for misleading medical advertisements. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed the apologies from both Balkrishna and Patanjali co-founder Baba Ramdev as insufficient.
The bench criticized the apologies as merely “on paper” and indicated potential penal consequences for the breach of an earlier court undertaking made in November last year, emphasizing the serious nature of the violation. Justice Kohli expressed dissatisfaction with the apologies provided, suggesting that they reflect a deliberate disregard for the court’s directives.
During the proceedings, Patanjali’s legal representation, led by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, proposed a public apology, yet the court declined this offer, seeking more substantive compliance. This stance came after the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, admitted to advising the withdrawal of a previously conditional affidavit for a more straightforward and unconditional one, which the court still found unconvincing.
Complicating matters further, the court highlighted an attempt by Balkrishna and Ramdev to evade personal court appearances by submitting false travel documents, which were purportedly booked after the affidavits claiming such travel were sworn.
This controversy extends into the regulatory domain, with the court expressing severe concerns over the lack of action by Uttarakhand’s licensing authorities against Patanjali’s subsidiary, Divya Pharmacy, accusing them of potential complicity.
The case stems from a petition by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali’s public disparagement of allopathy and unverified health claims, leading to a series of legal rebukes and directives aimed at curtailing misleading health-related advertisements by the company. The court has now scheduled further proceedings, maintaining strict scrutiny over Patanjali’s compliance with its directives.
