Supreme Court Says Patanjali MD, Baba Ramdev Cited Non-Existing Flight Tickets To Avoid Personal Appearance; Rejects Second Apology

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 10) rejected the second affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna in the contempt case over the publication of misleading medical advertisements.The bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah refused to accept the apology affidavit filed by Patanjali co-founder Baba Ramdev as well, who is also facing contempt proceedings.The subject affidavits filed expressed "unconditional and unqualified apology" for airing of advertisements in breach of an undertaking given to the Court in November last year. The bench told Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Patanjali's lawyer, that the apologies were merely "on paper" and warned that the proposed contemnors should be ready to face penal action for violation of the undertaking."Apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking. Be ready for something next to rejection of affidavit," Justice Kohli told Rohatgi. When Rohatgi said, "people make mistakes", Justice Kohli retorted, "Then they suffer. We don't want to be so generous in this case.""Why should we not treat your apology with the same disdain as shown to court undertaking? We are not convinced. Now going to turn down this apology," Justice Kohli further remarked.Towards the end of the hearing, Rohatgi said that the contemnors are prepared to issue a public apology. But the court did not grant indulgence.Notably, last week, the bench had expressed dissatisfaction with an earlier affidavit of Patanjali MD since it contained certain comments terming the Drugs and Other Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 "archaic".Today, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the Court that he had advised the lawyers to withdraw the first affidavit, as it was written in conditional terms, and file an unconditional affidavit. The SG further said that he was curious to know what he missed in advising. In response, the bench stated that the SG had done all he could, but the affidavit, despite his recommendation, was not convincing and only on paper."Having regard to the entire history of the matter and the past conduct of the respondents (5-7), we have expressed our reservations about accepting the latest affidavit filed by them," the Court observed in its order.Balkrishna, Ramdev tried to evade personal appearance by making false claims about foreign travelIn another curious development, the Court commented that Patanjali MD & Baba Ramdev tried to evade personal appearance before the Court by making false claims of travel abroad.It observed that after show-cause notices were issued, the duo attempted to "wriggle out of their personal presence" by moving applications seeking exemption on the ground that they were travelling abroad. To demonstrate the said fact, affidavits were filed by them, referring to certain flight tickets, which were produced as annexures.But, though the applications were filed on March 30 and the flight tickets produced as annexures, "strangely enough", the same were booked on March 31. The concerned lawyer was confronted with this fact during the earlier hearing.In the latest affidavits, Balkrishna and Ramdev admitted that the tickets were issued on a day after the affidavits were sworn and explained that at the time of filing of the affidavits, the photocopies of the tickets were annexed."Fact remains that the date when the affidavits were sworn (March 30), there was no such ticket in existence. Therefore, the assumption is that the respondents were trying to wriggle out of their personal appearance before the Court, which is most unacceptable," the Court mentioned in the order.Court raps Uttarakhand authoritiesDuring the hearing, the Court also came down heavily on the State of Uttarakhand for the failure of its licensing authority to take legal action against Patanjali and its subsidiary Divya Pharmacy. The bench asked why it should not think that the authorities were "hand in glove" with Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy.In its order, the court said that it was "appalled" to note that apart from "pushing the file", the State Licensing Authority (SLA) did nothing and was merely trying to "pass on the buck" to "somehow delay the matter."It further remarked that the predecessor of the present Joint Director, SLA was "equally complicit" due to his inaction against Divya Pharmacy despite having information about their advertisements violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act. Refraining from issuing contempt notices to other officers, the Court directed that the predecessor of present Joint Director, SLA file an affidavit explaining the inaction on his part for the period of his tenure (3 years). All persons holding the post of District Ayurvedic and Unani Officers, Haridwar between 2018 till date were also directed to file similar affidavits.BackgroundTo recap briefly, the contempt...

Supreme Court Says Patanjali MD, Baba Ramdev Cited Non-Existing Flight Tickets To Avoid Personal Appearance; Rejects Second Apology

Debby Jain

Tags