Supreme Court grants ‘last opportunity’ to Ramdev, Patanjali MD to file affidavits in ‘misleading’ advertising case. Supreme Court told to Ramdev’s counsel to note an unconditional apology. Before passing an order Supreme Court has come heavily not only on Patanjali i.e. Baba Ram Dev and Acharya Balkrishna but on Union of India and Uttrakhand Govt also.
The Supreme Court instructed the Patanjali to refrain from making any “casual statements” to the print or electronic media regarding the effectiveness of their medicinal products. Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna were given a final opportunity to submit affidavits within one week. This decision came during their appearance before the court on April 2, in response to show cause notices as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
The court expressed dissatisfaction with Patanjali’s request for more time to file a fresh affidavit, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling their commitments. Ramdev and Balkrishna were instructed to be present at the next hearing on April 10. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the undertakings given to the court and condemned the defiance displayed.
Ramdev’s counsel offered an unconditional apology, while the court disapproved of Patanjali MD’s statement regarding the Drugs and Cosmetics (Magic Remedies) Act, questioning the government’s inaction when Patanjali claimed there were no remedies for COVID in allopathy.
Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah issued a show cause notice to Baba Ramdev regarding contempt proceedings initiated against him for publishing misleading advertisements, despite an earlier undertaking to the court. Patanjali was directed to refrain from making casual statements about their products’ efficacy or disparaging other medical disciplines.
The court observed that Patanjali’s advertisements contradicted the law and noted Baba Ramdev’s association with Patanjali. Despite earlier instructions, a press conference was held the day after the court order. The court reiterated its stance against misleading advertisements and emphasized compliance with the law.
