'Is Your Apology As Big As Your Advertisements?' : Supreme Court Asks Patanjali Ayurved

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 23) asked Patanjali Ayurved if the public apology published by it in newspapers yesterday was as big as its advertisements.

A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was considering the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev for publishing misleading medical advertisements in violation of an undertaking given to the Court in November last year.

Yesterday, Patanjali Ayurved had published advertisements in certain newspapers expressing apology for the "mistake of publishing advertisements and holding a press conference even after our advocates made a statement in the apex court". Today, Patanjali's lawyer Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi informed the bench about the advertisements. Both Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna were personally present in the Court.

"Is the apology the same size as your advertisements?," Justice Kohli asked Patanjali. "It costs tens of lakhs," said Rohatgi in reply, before emphasizing that the apology was published in 67 newspapers.

Hearing the same, Justice Kohli remarked, "Does it cost the same tens of lakhs of rupees for the full-page advertisements you published? We are wondering".

The hearing was adjourned till April 30, with the bench asking Patanjali's lawyers to bring on record the copy of actual apology advertisements.

Reprimanding Patanjali's lawyers for not producing the said copies, Justice Kohli said, "Cut the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. For you to photocopy by enlarging, it may not impress us. We want to see the actual size of the ad. When you issue an apology, it does not mean that we have to see it by a microscope".

The bench further expressed its intention to explore the larger issue of misleading health claims made by FMCG companies and impleaded the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Information Technology as parties to the case.

An explanation was sought from the Union Government regarding a letter issued by the AYUSH Ministry asking States to refrain from taking action against the advertisement of AYUSH products as per Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

The bench observed that the petitioner-Indian Medical Association also needed to “put its house in order” as there are allegations of unethical conduct by doctors (IMA members). In this regard, the bench directed the adding of the National Medical Commission as a party to the case.

Previously, the Court had refused to accept the affidavits of apology filed by Patanjali and Baba Ramdev, after noting that they were not unqualified or unconditional. On the last date, both Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna personally expressed their apology to the Supreme Court, after the bench extensively questioned both of them.

During the April 10 hearing, the Court also came down heavily on the Uttarakhand State authorities for failing to take action against Patanjali under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954. The Court also chided the Union Government for not acting against the COVID cure claims made by Patanjali with its "Coronil" product during the pandemic.

Case Title: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022