Supreme Court grills Patanjali over apology
The Supreme Court, presiding over the case concerning misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved, scrutinized the size of the apology issued by the company in newspapers today. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna, informed the bench about a fresh set of apologies submitted to the court. However, the court questioned the timing of the apologies, emphasizing that they should have been filed earlier. Mr. Rohatgi mentioned that the apologies were published in 67 newspapers at a cost of ₹10 lakh. Responding to Justice Hima Kohli’s inquiry about the prominence of the apology, Mr. Rohatgi explained that the company had incurred substantial expenses. However, the court expressed disinterest, stating, “We are not bothered.”
The bench noted receiving an application seeking a ₹1000 crore fine against the Indian Medical Association (IMA) for its case against Patanjali. Suspecting it to be a proxy plea, the bench emphasized that the clients of Mr. Rohatgi have no involvement in it. The Supreme Court adjourned the matter for a week after Ramdev assured that a larger apology would be published in newspapers.
The Bench gave Mr. Rohatgi time till April 30 to file the original papers instead of enlarged versions, emphasizing the need to assess their actual size. Meanwhile, Patanjali Ayurveda issued an apology in national dailies, reaffirming respect for the court and a commitment to rectify mistakes.
The court has questioned the AYUSH Ministry regarding the unexpected removal of Rule 170, pertaining to action against objectionable advertisements, from the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Expressing concern, the court noted that the government’s own expert body had initially recommended Rule 170, only for it to be removed later on without clear justification. Justice Kohli sought clarification from the Centre, highlighting the contradiction between the assurance to protect consumers and the subsequent removal of the regulation.
Interestingly, Patanjali cited the absence of Rule 170 as justification to continue their advertisements, deeming the remaining laws, particularly the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act of 1954, as outdated.
Justice Kohli expressed grave concern over the impact of misleading advertisements on the public, especially families, emphasizing the potential health implications for babies and school children. She noted a trend among several Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) companies adopting such practices and urged the Union government to intervene, particularly in cases targeting infants and children. The court also highlighted the Advertising Standards Council of India’s flagging of 948 objectionable advertisements to the AYUSH Ministry in the past two years and questioned the follow-up action taken. Consequently, the court decided to include the Ministries of Consumer Affairs and Information and Broadcasting as parties in the case, alongside licensing authorities and drug controllers under AYUSH.
Furthermore, the court scrutinized the Indian Medical Association’s role as the petitioner against Patanjali and announced plans to investigate inflated medical bills and alleged collusion between doctors and pharmaceutical companies. This aspect of the case is scheduled for further examination on May 7. Justice Amanullah also remarked on the irony of a news channel airing the hearing while simultaneously displaying advertisements from the company in question.
This development follows a series of events where Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna faced criticism from the Supreme Court for misleading claims about their products’ curative properties. Despite earlier apologies being rejected by the court as insincere, Ramdev expressed faith in the judiciary. The court rebuked the founders for initially sending the apologies to the media before submission to the court, highlighting a preference for publicity.
The case originated during the pandemic when Patanjali launched Coronil, claiming it as a COVID-19 remedy with WHO certification. The dispute escalated after Ramdev made disparaging remarks about allopathy, leading to legal action by the IMA. Despite assurances to adhere to laws, Patanjali faced contempt proceedings for continuing misleading advertisements. The court’s insistence on accountability underscores the seriousness of the issue, emphasizing adherence to legal standards and transparency in advertising practices.
