Patanjali misleading ads: SC closes contempt case against Ramdev, Balkrishna
What's the story
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed contempt proceedings against Yoga guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd's Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna.
The court accepted their unconditional apology and also an undertaking that said that the company would refrain from making misleading advertisements about its products.
Legal relief followed repeated apology affidavits from Ramdev and Balkrishna, alongside apologies published in newspapers.
The court warned that the contempt case would be reopened if the terms of their undertaking are breached again.
Court case
Contempt proceedings initiated by IMA's petition
The contempt proceedings stemmed from a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Ramdev and Balkrishna, founders of Patanjali Ayurved, for allegedly making misleading claims about their products.
In earlier hearings on the IMA's petition, which also raised issues with Ramdev's controversial comments on modern medicine, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern and stressed the importance of responsible discourse, particularly during a pandemic like Covid-19.
Information
SC had earlier warned Patanjali against misinformation
The court reprimanded Patanjali for spreading misinformation that could "erode public trust in the healthcare system," and in November 2023, the company pledged to stop airing misleading ads or making disparaging remarks about other forms of medicine.
However, the IMA returned to the court with a video of a presser held by Ramdev and Patanjali ads just a day after their November 21 undertaking.
The association also presented ads claiming Patanjali products could cure ailments like hypertension and diabetes.
Evidence
IMA presented evidence of Patanjali's misleading advertisements
Frustrated by the violation of its order and Patanjali's own assurances, the court issued subsequent orders on February 27, March 19, April 2, and April 10, summoning Ramdev and Balkrishna to explain why they should not be punished for contempt.
Although they filed multiple apology affidavits, the court found them unsatisfactory.
On April 10, the bench harshly criticized Ramdev and Balkrishna, rejecting their unconditional apology.
It also criticized the Uttarakhand government for not enforcing advertising rules against false claims.
Court response
SC issued show-cause notice
On April 16, during the latest hearing, the bench directly questioned Ramdev and Balkrishna, saying that their claims of innocence or inadvertence were not acceptable after they ignored court orders despite prior warnings.
The court gave them a week to take appropriate actions to "redeem themselves" and show genuine remorse.
So far, Ramdev and Balkrishna have submitted two apology affidavits and issued a public apology in the media.
Criticism
Uttarakhand officials reprimanded
Notably, the court also reproached Uttarakhand officials for failing to register cases against Patanjali for issuing advertisements promising cure for lifestyle and other specified ailments prohibited under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectional Advertisements) Act 1954, Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Rules 1955, and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945.
Apology
Apology affidavits
In their apologies, the Patanjali founders recognized the seriousness of their actions and assured the court that the company would cease all misleading advertising practices. They also pledged to ensure that all future advertisements and public statements are carefully vetted for accuracy and comply with all relevant laws and regulations.
The SC accepted their apologies.