The Supreme Court Today (May 14th) said that it was not convinced by the apology affidavit submitted by Indian Medical Assocation (IMA) President Dr RV Asokan over his comments criticising the Court in an interview.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today expressed its dissatisfaction with the apology affidavit submitted by Dr. RV Asokan, the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA). Dr. Asokan had come under scrutiny for his critical remarks about the Apex Court during an interview.
The Bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, engaged with Dr. Asokan, highlighting the gravity of his comments and the need for responsible discourse.
“Dr. Asokan, you are also a citizen of this country. The amount of criticism judges face, why don’t they react? Because personally we don’t have much of an ego, we are magnanimous. We are entitled to take action, but very rarely we do,”
-remarked the Bench during the interaction.
Justice Kohli further emphasized,
“We do that seldom…We use our discretion with some sense of responsibility. But that does not mean you go to town with these kind of comments! What would you have done if the other side made these kind of comments? You would have come running to this Court!”
The context of this exchange stemmed from a case filed by the IMA against Patanjali Ayurved over misleading advertisements disparaging modern medicine. During previous hearings, the Court had urged the Association to address unethical practices in modern medicine and hospitals, including the prescription of expensive medicines.
On April 30, Dr. Asokan’s comments in the press regarding the Supreme Court’s stance on the Patanjali case stirred controversy. He expressed disappointment, terming the Court’s criticism “unfortunate” and alleging demoralization of private doctors. This drew sharp reactions from the Bench.
“We would have expected more sense of responsibility from you,”
–Justice Kohli remarked directly to Dr. Asokan during the hearing.
“You can’t vent your feelings against the Court in the press like this. What made you go suddenly like this?”
-queried Justice Amanullah.
Dr. Asokan promptly offered an unconditional apology for his remarks. However, the Court remained unconvinced by his affidavit, questioning its sincerity given the severity of his initial statements.
“Whether we should accept your statements after such damaging statements? You are the one who dragged the other side to the Court saying they are denigrating you, but when you are put to test…”
-the Bench deliberated.
Seeking clarification, they asked,
“Why did you not give a public apology? Everything was written in black and white, why did you not make amends if you truly wanted to apologize? You could have gone to the same agency (PTI) and said what you are saying on affidavit now…What did you do to redeem yourself after the interview? Tell us.”
Contemplating potential judicial action to send a message, Justice Kohli underscored,
“We are the first one to uphold the freedom of free speech. But there are times when there should be self-restraint. As IMA President, you should have had self-restraint. We didn’t see that in your interviews.”
This exchange reflects a critical juncture in the relationship between professional bodies like the IMA and the judiciary, emphasizing the importance of respectful dialogue and responsible conduct, especially when addressing matters of public interest.
CASE TITLE:
Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Patanjali Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
