SC asks Patanjali Ayurved “Is the apology the same size as your advertisements?” in the contempt proceedings and adjourns the matter till April 30

Today, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing the contempt case against the Patanjali Ayurved over the publication of misleading medical advertisements. The top court today asked the Central Government regarding the failure to invoke the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 against the Patanjali Ayurved concerning the publication of misleading medical advertisements. Moreover, the bench also asked the Patanjali Ayurved if the public apology published by them was as big as their advertisements. The bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the matter today. 

During the proceedings, both Baba Ramdev and Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurved Acharya Balkrishna were present in the court. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Patanjali informed the SC about the advertisements. Justice Kohli asked, “Is the apology the same size as your advertisements?” SA replied that the advertisements cost Patanjali Ayurved Rs. 10 lakh. Justice Kohli asked “Does it cost the same tens of lakhs of rupees for the full-page advertisements you published? We are wondering.” 

The bench asked Patanjali to bring a copy of the apology advertisement and adjourned the matter for hearing till April 30, 2024. Justice Kohli said, “Cut the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. For you to photocopy by enlarging, it may not impress us. We want to see the actual size of the ad. When you issue an apology, it does not mean that we have to see it by a microscope.” Moreover, the SC also took note of an intervention application. It said, “There is an intervention which wants us to impose ₹1,000 crores on IMA (Indian Medical Association) as costs for filing this complaint. Looks like a proxy plea on your behalf, Mr. Rohatgi.” SA Rohatgi replied, “I have nothing to do with this.” 

Further, the SC said that it would also look into the allegations against IMA. The order reads, “The petitioner (IMA) needs to put its own house in order regarding alleged unethical acts of the petitioner organization where medicines are prescribed which are expensive and unnecessary. Whenever there is a misuse of the position by the petitioner association to prescribe expensive medicines and the line of treatment needs closer examination.” Earlier on April 10, 2024, the SC rejected the second apology by the Patanjali Ayurved in the contempt case regarding the publication of misleading medical advertisements.