Supreme Court Asks Patanjali To Inform If Stocks Of Products Were Recalled After Their Licenses Were Suspended; Reserves Order In Contempt Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 14) reserved verdict on the contempt proceedings pending against Patanjali Ltd, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev over the publication of misleading medical advertisements in breach of a court undertaking.A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed the order, on being informed by Senior Advocate Balbir Singh (for Patanjali) that the original copies of apology notices, as directed, have been filed and steps are underway with respect to ads of Patanjali products for which licenses were recently suspended by state authorities.Hearing Singh, the bench pointed out there were stocks already in circulation when licenses for 14 Patanjali products were suspended. It was directed that an affidavit be filed by Patanjali within 3 weeks, indicating inter-alia steps being taken to recall ads of Patanjali products of which licenses have been suspended and for recalling medicines wherever they have been sent for sale to stockists and other agencies.On a request by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, the court recorded Patanjali's submission that the aforesaid affidavit would be without prejudice to its right to assail the order of suspension with respect to the manufacturing licenses, before appropriate forum. It also dispensed with the personal appearance of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.It may be recalled that after a reprimand by the Supreme Court for inaction, the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority suspended the licenses of 14 products of Patanjali and its sister concern Divya Pharmacy under Rule 159(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1954. The State also filed a criminal complaint against the company, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.At about the same time, Patanjali published a public apology in certain newspapers for the "mistake of publishing advertisements and holding a press conference even after our advocates made a statement in the apex court". However, the bench disregarded the same, considering in particular the size of the apology ads.After the court's rap, Patanjali published another apology in newspapers, this time giving its own name alongside that of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. On April 30, the bench expressed satisfaction with Patanjali's latest apology, however, lamented that the original copies of the same were not filed as directed. "There has been a marked improvement from the last...two things, (earlier) it was small and there was only Patanjali...no names...now names have come. Language is adequate. It is a marked improvement. We appreciate that", it had said, while giving time to Patanjali's counsels to bring on record the first pages of each newspaper in which apology was published.On this date, Patanjali lawyers also brought to the notice of the court that the President of petitioner-Indian Medical Association gave a media interview, criticizing the court's observations regarding the need for IMA to take action on complaints of unethical practices by allopathic doctors as "vague" and "unfortunate". Following this, the court permitted Patanjali's lawyers to bring the interview in question on record.On the last date of hearing, an application filed by Patanjali against the IMA, alleging contempt, was listed. While issuing notice and seeking IMA's response, the bench condemned the interview given by the IMA President and impleaded him as a co-respondent. It also conveyed its displeasure with regard to continuation of misleading ads on the internet, websites, and various channels, despite licenses to the relevant products having been suspended.Previous reports in the matter can be read here.Also from today's hearing - Patanjali Case : Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Apology Of Indian Medical Association PresidentCase Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Asks Patanjali To Inform If Stocks Of Products Were Recalled After Their Licenses Were Suspended; Reserves Order In Contempt Case

Debby Jain

Tags