On February 27, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed displeasure about non-compliance with its prior order!
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued contempt notices to Patanjali managing director Acharya Balkrishna and yoga guru Baba Ramdev for deceptive ads, ordering them to appear in court in two weeks.
On February 27, a bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed unhappiness about noncompliance with its prior order. It requested a statement from Patanjali and Balkrishna about false ads released despite an undertaking in November of last year. The court included Ramdev as a party to the case after seeing his photograph in the advertisements.
The court issued the notices, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be instituted. “The proposed contemnor – managing director Acharya Balkrishna shall be present in court along with proposed contemnor Acharya Ramdev on the next date.”
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt (1975) and provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectional Advertisements) Act (1954). Section 3 of the Act forbids ads that claim to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent lifestyle disorders such as blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, cervical spondylitis, obesity, or heart disease.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali, informed the court that Ramdev had nothing to do with Patanjali. He added that before showing cause, the court should allow him to be heard.
The bench stated that the 1954 Act’s provisions apply to all. “On the last occasion, there was evidence claiming that Baba Ramdev conducted a news conference after our injunction was issued. We’ve only given a show-cause notice. “Let him respond.”
The Indian Medical Association filed a court complaint against Patanjali for making false and deceptive promises about treating ailments and criticizing modern medicine.
On February 27, the court ordered Patanjali not to run any false advertisements on the medical efficacy of its products or against any other medical system. It demanded a response from Patanjali and Balkrishna, as well as the Union government, over the alleged deceptive ads.
The court also called out the government since its affidavit, filed late on Monday evening, was not on record. It was unable to locate a copy of the government’s response and ordered it to be recorded before the next deadline. The court told the administration that if its response is unacceptable, it will issue necessary orders.
Reader Interactions