SC comes down heavily on Patanjali, directs Ramdev, Balkrishna to appear in misleading ad case

Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, directed yoga guru Ramdev and Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurved, Acharya Balkrishna to appear before it after taking exception to the company's failure to respond to notice issued in the contempt proceedings relating to advertisements of the firm's products and their medicinal efficacy.

The apex court said that it deemed appropriate to issue a show cause notice to Ramdev as the advertisements issued by Patanjali, which were in the teeth of the undertaking given to the court on November 21, 2023, reflect an endorsement by him.

A bench of justices, Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, noted that Patanjali Ayurved, a company co-founded by Ramdev and dealing in herbal products, and Balkrishna have not filed replies to the notices issued earlier to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for prima facie violating the undertaking given to the court.

The court directed them to personally appear before it at the next hearing.

"In view of the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct the presence of the managing director of respondent no. 5 on the next date of hearing.

Further, having gone through the advertisements issued by respondent 5 (Patanjali Ayurved) in the teeth of the undertaking given to this court on November 21, 2023 and on noticing that the said advertisements reflect an endorsement thereof by Acharya Ramdev, it is deemed appropriate to issue notice to show cause as to why contempt of court proceedings be not initiated against him in view of the fact that this court is of the prima facie opinion that he has also violated the provisions of section 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act'," it said.

Section 3 of the Act refers to prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for treatment of certain diseases and disorders and Section 4 of the Act refers to prohibition of misleading advertisements relating to drugs.

On November 21 last year, the counsel representing the company had assured the court that "Henceforth there shall not be any violation of any law(s), especially relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it and, further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form.”

The top court is hearing a plea of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign by Ramdev against the Covid vaccination drive and modern system of medicine.

At the outset, the bench sought to know why have Patanjali and Balkrishna not filed their replies to notice issued in the contempt proceedings.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali and Balkrishna, said that he has had some discussions with his client on the issue.

"It is not enough for us. We had taken it very seriously. Not filing it means there will be orders and consequences will follow," the bench told Rohatgi.

The court also directed proposed contemnors Patanjali and Balkrishna to file their replies by Wednesday.

"Proposed contemnor/ MD of respondent no. 5 shall be present on the next date of hearing along with newly impleaded party, proposed contemnor Acharya Ramdev," the bench ordered.

It also pulled up the Centre as its affidavit, which was filed only on Monday evening, was not on record.

The bench granted permission to the Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj, to withdraw its earlier additional affidavit and allowed it "a last opportunity" of two weeks to file a fresh affidavit setting out the steps it has taken in terms of the November 21, 2023 order.

As the bench concluded dictating the order, Rohatgi said Ramdev does not hold any position in Patanjali Ayurved and that no new advertisement was issued. “The advertisements in question were already there on the last date of hearing,” he said.

"I am saying that the advertisement was very much there on the last date that is why the court issued notice to Respondent no. 5. How does Ramdev come into picture?" he said, adding there must be some reason for issuing notice to him.

Responding to his contention, the bench said it had refrained from doing so at the previous hearing and the reasons for issuing notice to Ramdev now have been indicated in the order.

"That is enough. You have made your request, we have heard it, no interference needed in the order dictated," the bench said.