Supreme Court’s Rare Response: Ego-Free Judiciary Amid IMA President’s Critique in Patanjali Case

The Supreme Court, in response to an apology affidavit submitted by Indian Medical Association (IMA) President Dr RV Asokan regarding his critical comments about the Court, expressed skepticism. During the interaction with Dr. Asokan, a Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah highlighted the criticism judges endure and their restrained response, emphasizing their magnanimity and infrequent action despite their entitlement to do so.

Here’s all that happened:

• Justice Kohli emphasized the Court’s discretion and responsibility in responding to criticism, cautioning against making inflammatory comments.
• The case before the Court involved a dispute between the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and Patanjali Ayurved over misleading advertisements disparaging modern medicine.
• In a previous hearing, the Court instructed the IMA to address unethical practices in modern medicine, including prescribing expensive medicines.
• On April 30, the Court expressed strong objection to comments made by Dr. Asokan, the IMA President, regarding the Court’s criticism of the IMA in the Patanjali case.
• Dr. Asokan appeared before the Court and offered an unconditional apology for his remarks.
• However, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Asokan’s apology affidavit, questioning why he did not issue a public apology after the controversial interview.
• The Bench criticized Dr. Asokan for not taking immediate steps to rectify his statements after the interview.
• The Court contemplated taking judicial notice of the issue to send a message about the importance of self-restraint, particularly for public figures like the IMA President.
• Justice Kohli underscored the value of free speech but emphasized the need for self-restraint, particularly from leaders like the IMA President.
• The Court urged Dr. Asokan to exercise greater discretion and responsibility in his public statements as the President of the IMA.
• The exchange between Dr. Asokan and the Court highlighted the importance of accountability and professionalism in public discourse, especially concerning sensitive issues like healthcare.
• The Court’s stance underscored the significance of maintaining decorum and respect for judicial institutions, even amidst public criticism.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International