Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Patanjali Ayurved's Apology In Contempt Case,Warns Baba Ramdev Of Perjury Proceedings

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 2) came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and its co-founder Baba Ramdev while hearing the contempt case against them over the publication of misleading medical advertisements in breach of an undertaking given to the Court.Balkrishna and Ramdev were personally present before the Court following the direction issued on March 19.To recapitulate, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali's advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases. In this regard, the Division Bench had previously issued a Contempt notice (on February 27) to Patanjali Ayurved and its MD noting that Patanjali continued misleading advertisements despite the assurance given by Patanjali's counsel last November before the Court that it would refrain from making such advertisements. Following this, on March 19, when the Court was informed that the reply to the Contempt notice was not filed, it went on to pass an order seeking the personal appearance of Acharya Balakrishna and the company's co-founder Baba Ramdev, who also featured in the press conferences and advertisements published after the undertaking given to the Court.Today, the Court noted that Baba Ramdev's affidavit was not on record and made it clear that the matter has to be taken to its logical conclusion. Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, who appeared for Baba Ramdev, submitted that the parties were physically present today and ready to apologize in person. However, this submission did not appeal to the Court which said that if the parties wanted to apologize, then they should have filed proper affidavits.Notwithstanding, after hearing the counsels, the Court granted Baba Ramev the last opportunity to file a reply, and the timeline given is one week. Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for April 10 and made it clear that the physical presence of both parties is required on the next date of the hearing. Court questions the affidavit filed by Patanjali MDThe Court took exception to the explanation given in MD Acharya Balkrishna's affidavit that the media department of the company was not aware of the Supreme Court's order. Conveying the Court's displeasure to Patanjali's counsel Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, Justice Kohli said that the MD cannot "feign ignorance" and that the media department cannot be regarded as a "standalone island"."Once there are undertakings given to the court, then whose duty it is to convey to the entire chain down the line?" Justice Kohli asked.Sanghi agreed that there had been a lapse and expressed his regret for the same. Justice Kohli replied, "Your regret may not be sufficient for the Court. It amounts to the gross violation of the undertaking given to the highest court of the land, which is not to be taken lightly."“Just to say that now you are sorry, we can also say that we are sorry. We are not willing to accept such an explanation... that your media department is not a standalone department, is it? That it would not know that what is happening in the Court proceedings.” Justice Kohli went on to say that this apology is not persuading this Court and is more of a "lip service." Court takes exception to Patanjali's statement against Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954It may be noted that in the order passed on February 27, the Court had restrained Patanjali Ayurved from advertising or branding its products which are meant to address the diseases/disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 in the meantime. However, the affidavit filed by the MD stated that this Act was “in an archaic state.” He also stated that the Act was enacted at a time when scientific evidence regarding Ayurvedic medicines was lacking. He added that the Company now possesses evidence-based scientific data with clinical research conducted in Ayurveda, which would demonstrate the advances made through scientific research in the context of diseases mentioned in the schedule of the Act. In this context, Justice Kohli said, "Shall we assume that every Act which is archaic should not be enforced in law? At this moment we are wondering that when there is an Act that governs the field, how can you violate it? Your all advertisements are in the teeth of that Act". “To top it all ,and that is adding insult to the injury, you give a solemn undertaking to this Court and you violate it with impunity?” The Court categorically refused to accept such an apology and termed the same as “perfunctory.” Defending the same, Sanghi submitted that the Act was passed in 1954 and that science has made a lot of progress since then. However, Justice Kohli did not change her stance and asked the counsel: Have you approached the concerned ministry to say that amend the act?In his another attempt to...

Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Patanjali Ayurved's Apology In Contempt Case,Warns Baba Ramdev Of Perjury Proceedings

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Supreme Court Refuses To Accept Patanjali Ayurved's Apology In Contempt Case,Warns Baba Ramdev Of Perjury Proceedings

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers