30 April 2024 8:35 AM GMT
In the contempt case proceedings pending against Patanjali, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev over the publication of misleading medical advertisements in breach of a court undertaking, the Supreme Court today observed that there was a "marked improvement" in the nature of apology published by Patanjali in newspapers but the original copies of the same, as asked, had still not been filed.
The Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah appreciated the assistance of Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (appearing for Patanjali) towards that end and gave time to file (without affidavit) original copies of only those pages of newspapers on which public apology has been published.
"There has been a marked improvement from the last...two things, (earlier) it was small and there was only Patanjali...no names...now names have come. Language is adequate. It is a marked improvement. We appreciate that. Now finally they (proposed contemnors) have understood...that is the benefit of an intelligent counsel assisting the court", Justice Amanullah said.
After conclusion of the hearing, Justice Kohli dictated the order thus:
"He (Sr Adv Rohatgi) concedes that there has been some misunderstanding of the orders passed by this Court by his briefing counsel and states that one more opportunity be given to comply with the order passed by this Court on 24 April 2024 by filing the original page of each newspaper in which a public apology has been issued, in original. The Registry is directed to accept the said documents when filed."
The judge was shortly heard amending the order to say, "public apology tendering an unqualified apology for violating the orders of this court and for the act of breaching the undertakings given to this court". When Justice Amanullah interjected to add "on behalf of all three (Patanjali, Ramdev and Balkrishna)", Justice Kohli clarified "each one separate...THEIR unqualified apology".
To recapitulate briefly, on the last date, the Bench had expressed dissatisfaction with the apology published by Patanjali in certain newspapers for the "mistake of publishing advertisements and holding a press conference even after our advocates made a statement in the apex court", particularly its size.
After the court's rap, Patanjali published another apology in newspapers, this time giving its own name alongside that of Swami Ramdev (co-founder) and Acharya Balkrishna (MD). The Uttarakhand government, on its part, suspended Patanjali and Divya Pharmacy's manufacturing licenses for 14 products.
Today, during the hearing, the Bench was initially upset at the original copies of issued apologies not being filed in the format explained on the last date. But when Sr Advocate Balbir Singh took it upon himself that there was misunderstanding of the court order, time was given to do the needful.
In addition, Rohatgi pointed out to the court that an interview was given yesterday by present IMA President, critiquing the order passed by the court on April 23. Taking note, Justice Kohli asked the senior counsel to bring the same on record.
The court further came down heavily on the Uttarakhand government for the affidavits filed on behalf of its officers. Be that as it may, time was given to file additional affidavits on a request by Sr Advocate Dhruv Mehta (representing the state government). A detailed report on the exchange shall follow shortly.
The matter will next be considered on May 7 and 14.
Background
The contempt case arises out of a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali's advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases. On the top Court's reprimand, Patanjali had assured last November that it would refrain from such advertisements.
However, noting that the misleading advertisements continued, the Court had issued contempt notice to Patanjali and its MD in February. In March, considering that reply to the contempt notice was not filed, the personal appearance of the Patanjali MD as well as Baba Ramdev, who featured in the press conferences and advertisements published after the undertaking, was ordered by the Court.
Subsequently, the Patanjali MD filed an affidavit saying that the impugned advertisements were meant to contain only general statements but inadvertently included offending sentences. It was further stated that the advertisements were bona-fide and that Patanjali's media personnel was not “cognizant” of the November order (where undertaking was given before the top Court).
The affidavit also contained an averment that the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act was in an "archaic state" as it was enacted at a time when scientific evidence regarding Ayurvedic medicines was lacking.
On April 2, both Baba Ramdev and MD Balkrishna were physically present in Court. While Baba Ramdev's affidavit was not on record, the court expressed its reservations about MD Balkrishna's affidavit, calling it "perfunctory" and "mere lip service". A last opportunity was given to the alleged contemnors for filing a proper affidavit.
Thereafter, on April 10, the court rejected the second apology affidavit filed by the proposed contemnors, saying that the apologies were merely "on paper". It was further warned that the proposed contemnors should be ready to face penal action for violation of the undertaking.
During this hearing, the Court also came down heavily on the Uttarakhand State authorities for failing to take action against Patanjali under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.
Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022