On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed contempt charges against Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved’s Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna, in connection with the continued publication of allegedly misleading advertisements by the company.
The court’s decision follows the submission of a public apology by Patanjali and a formal apology tendered before the apex court.
The bench, led by Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, had previously reserved its verdict on 14 May after exempting Ramdev and Balkrishna from further personal appearances in the hearings.
While the Supreme Court has now closed the contempt proceedings, it issued a clear warning to the duo, cautioning them against any future breaches of their commitments to the court.
Case Background:
The case stems from allegations that Patanjali violated an earlier undertaking given to the Supreme Court, in which the company promised not to make unsubstantiated claims regarding the medicinal efficacy of its products.
In November last year, Patanjali had assured the court that it would refrain from promoting its products in violation of existing laws and from making any disparaging statements against other medical systems in the media.
The court had initially rejected an unconditional and unqualified apology from Ramdev and Balkrishna, expressing concern over the apparent disregard for the company’s previous commitment.
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) had also called for action against Patanjali for breaching the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which prohibits advertising products that claim to treat specified diseases and disorders such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity.
In a related development, the Supreme Court last week instructed IMA President Dr. R V Asokan to issue a public apology at his own expense for his contemptuous remarks regarding the court’s oral observations in the Patanjali case.
Dr. Asokan had described the court’s comments as unfortunate and vague, claiming they had demoralized allopathy practitioners.
With the contempt case now closed, the court’s warning serves as a reminder of the seriousness with which it views adherence to its orders and the legal framework governing public health claims.
