On Tuesday, the Supreme Court summoned Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurveda Director Acharya Balkrishna to appear in person for contempt proceedings over alleged’misleading’ ads.
The court expressed concern with the company’s failure to reply to its notification regarding Patanjali’s breach of the undertaking, which promised not to issue any marketing about its drugs.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah further stated that Ramdev and Patanjali Chairman Acharya Balkrishna seemed to have violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
The Supreme Court also issued a notice to Ramdev, asking him to explain why he should not face contempt proceedings.
The Court upheld the ruling despite significant objections from Patanjali’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi.
“How can you be in the teeth of our orders?” Justice Kohli stated as the Court requested Ramdev and Balkrishna to file their responses.
Rohatgi protested and asked,
“How does Ramdev come into the picture?”
The Court was, however, adamant.
“You are appearing. We will see on the next date. Enough.”
Rohtagi then argued that a breach of the law did not constitute contempt of court and that what was spoken in open court had to be recorded in the order.
However, the court refused to relent and issued an order requiring Ramdev to attend in person.
Past Incidents
On February 27, during a hearing on a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) regarding’misleading’ advertisements, a restriction on Patanjali Ayurveda’s marketing activities was imposed until further notice. In addition, the court ordered Patanjali not to make disparaging remarks about any medical system.
At the time, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah had remarked, “The entire country has been taken for a ride. You shut your eyes! For two years, you wait for this important thing when the Drugs Act itself says it’s prohibited?”
In November, the Supreme Court warned of imposing charges of ₹1 crore for each deceptive claim made in advertisements for Patanjali Ayurvedic remedies that promise to treat diseases.
The Court subsequently stated that the problem could not be reduced to a choice between allopathy (modern treatment) and Ayurvedic goods.
The Supreme Court further urged Patanjali not to print deceptive ads in the future and to refrain from making such claims in the media, stating that a remedy to misleading medical marketing was required.
