[BREAKING] Patanjali Case | "Your Public Apology Published Was Illegible, Font Miniscule": SC Slams IMA President Over His 'Damaging' Statements

The Supreme Court Today (Aug 27) said the Indian Medical Association president R V Asokan’s unconditional apology published in a newspaper over his “damaging” statements in an interview to PTI was illegible and the font miniscule.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

[BREAKING] Patanjali Case | "Your Public Apology Published Was Illegible, Font Miniscule": SC Slams IMA President Over His 'Damaging' Statements

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed dissatisfaction with the unconditional apology submitted by Indian Medical Association (IMA) president R V Asokan, which was published in a newspaper.

The court found the apology to be “illegible” and criticized the “minuscule” font size used in the publication.

A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta directed senior advocate P S Patwalia, who represented Asokan, to provide physical copies of 20 editions of The Hindu newspaper in which the apology was published. The bench insisted on receiving these copies within a week.

“We will not budge until we see advertisements in physical form, show us the actual size… The excerpt of the apology filed before us is illegible in as much as the font is miniscule. Counsel for IMA president is directed to file physical copies of 20 publications of The Hindu where the publication of apology has been done within one week,”

-the bench stated.

This development follows an earlier assurance given by Asokan on July 9, when he informed the Supreme Court that his unconditional apology, regarding the “damaging” statements he made in an interview with PTI, had been published in various newspapers. In the interview, Asokan had commented on the ongoing case involving Patanjali Ayurved Ltd’s allegedly misleading advertisements.

During a May 14 hearing, the bench had confronted Asokan with tough questions concerning his remarks, emphasizing that such statements against the court were inappropriate.

“You cannot sit on a couch giving an interview to the press and lampooning the court,”

-the bench remarked at the time. The court had also made it clear that it would not accept his affidavit tendering an apology at that stage.

The court’s displeasure was sparked by Asokan’s comments, made a day before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the related case. The court had sought his response to an application filed by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, which urged the court to take judicial notice of Asokan’s statements.

In an interview on April 29 with PTI editors for its program ‘@4 Parliament Street,’ Asokan had described it as “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court had criticized the IMA and some practices of private doctors.

PREVIOUSLY IN APEX COURT

The Supreme Court on August 6th directed Indian Medical Association (IMA) President Dr. RV Asokan to publish apologies in all prominent newspapers for his statements criticizing the Supreme Court.

A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta clarified that these apologies should be issued personally by Dr. Asokan and not on behalf of the IMA, with the expenses borne out of his own pocket. The Court emphasized,

“Apology needs to be tendered by you and from your own pocket, not IMA.”

The matter was then adjourned to give Asokan time to publish the apologies.

The Court noted,

“It is submitted that the contempt proceedings may be deferred to enable the applicant to publish his apology in prominent newspapers and purge himself of the contempt.”

The case originated from a suit filed by the IMA against Patanjali Ayurved and its promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for allegedly publishing misleading advertisements targeting evidence-based medicine.

Over time, the case expanded to include broader issues such as misleading advertisements by others, the liability of celebrity influencers endorsing such ads, and unethical practices in modern medicine.

The IMA had accused Patanjali of conducting a smear campaign against modern medicine, leading to the Court issuing several strong strictures against Patanjali. However, the IMA later faced criticism from the Court when Dr. Asokan made comments to the press, describing the Supreme Court’s criticism of the IMA as “unfortunate” and stating that doctors were demoralized by the Court’s remarks.

The Bench, including Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, took strong exception to Asokan’s statements and ordered him to publish public apologies in prominent newspapers, including those where the controversial interview was published.

When the matter was reviewed, the Court inquired with IMA counsel Senior Advocate PS Patwalia about the details of the apology’s publication. The Court questioned,

“Except your own in-house publication, where have you published? Your newsletters are not good enough. Was it published in all newspapers where your interview was published?”

The Court observed that the order to publish the apology had not been fully complied with and warned Dr. Asokan of the potential consequences.

“Besides the ones you are referring to, which other publications was it (interview) shared with? You have to send (apology) to all of them. You cannot just wash your hands off. No assumptions here in your favor just because you say so. You are inviting trouble on yourself and we are not taking your apology.”

The Court also suggested that Dr. Asokan might be required to appear personally before the Bench, remarking,