Supreme Court: During the hearing on the contempt of court case against Patanjali Ayurveda for making ‘misleading claims’ for its medicines, the Supreme Court reprimanded Ramdev. Along with this, the court has ordered Ramdev and Bal Krishna to appear again on April 30. During the hearing, the court ordered Ramdev to re-issue the Patanjali apology advertisement in a bigger size. During the court’s reprimand, Ramdev had asked the Supreme Court to print a new advertisement, which the court approved.
Ramdev’s lawyer Mukul Rohatgi told the court that we have filed an apology. On this, Justice Hima Kohli asked why it was filed yesterday. We cannot see the bundles now, it should have been given to us earlier. Justice Amanullah asked where it was published. Responding to which Mukul Rohatgi said that it has been given in 67 newspapers. On which Justice Kohli asked whether it was the same size as your previous advertisements. On which Ramdev’s lawyer said that no, Rs 10 lakh has been spent on it.
Table of Contents
SC took the Health Ministry to task
The Supreme Court said that we have received an application demanding a fine of Rs 1000 crore on IMA for filing such a petition against Patanjali. Ramdev’s lawyer Rohatgi said that I have nothing to do with this. The court said that let me hear this applicant and then we will impose a fine on him. We doubt whether this is a proxy petition. At the same time, the court slammed the Ministry of Health for amending the rules to take action on misleading information. At the same time, Justice Kohli said (to the union) that now you want to withdraw Rule 170. If you have taken such a decision, then what happened to you? Why do you choose to act only under the Act which the respondents have called ‘archaic’.
Patanjali’s advertisement is running along with the news-SC
During the hearing, Justice Amanullah raised the question that a channel was showing the news of the latest Patanjali case and Patanjali’s advertisement was running on it. The court said that IMA said that they can also include the Consumer Act in the petition in this case. In such a situation, what about the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. We have seen that in the Patanjali case, what the court is saying is being shown on TV, at the same time, Patanjali’s advertisement is running in one part.
The Supreme Court questioned the Centre and said that you have to tell what the Advertising Council did to counter such advertisements. Its members also supported such products. Your members are prescribing medicines. The court said that we are not only looking at these people. The kind of coverage we have, now we are looking at everyone including children, infants, women. No one can be taken for a ride. The Centre should wake up to this. The court said that the matter is not only limited to Patanjali, but also about misleading advertisements of other companies.
“Why did the Health Ministry decide to withdraw Rule 170”
SC asked the government why the Ministry of AYUSH, the central health ministry, decided to withdraw Rule 170 (prohibits advertising of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines without the approval of the state licensing authority). Do you have the power to say not to follow the existing rule? Isn’t this an arbitrary colourable exercise? Are you not more concerned about revenue than what is published?
What did the Supreme Court say to Ramdev?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked yoga guru Ramdev and the company’s managing director Acharya Balkrishna to appear before it in person in the case of contempt proceedings related to advertisements of Patanjali Ayurveda products and their therapeutic effects. A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah strongly objected to the company and Balkrishna not filing a reply to the court’s notices issued earlier. They were issued notices and asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for prima facie violation of the undertaking given to the court.
The Supreme Court bench had issued a notice to Ramdev asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The apex court was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which accused Ramdev of running a campaign against the anti-Covid vaccination campaign and modern medicines.
