Hours ahead of a Supreme Court hearing Today (April 23rd) in the misleading ads case against it, Patanjali Ayurved today put out an apology in a national daily, stressing that they have utmost respect for the court and that their mistakes will not be repeated.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In anticipation of an impending Supreme Court session today regarding the case concerning misleading advertisements, Patanjali Ayurved issued a public apology in a prominent national daily. The statement emphasized the company’s profound reverence for the judiciary and expressed a firm commitment to rectify its errors.
This move follows a recent admonishment from a Supreme Court bench directed at Patanjali founders, Yoga guru Ramdev and his associate Balkrishna, regarding the company’s unsubstantiated claims regarding the treatment of ailments such as diabetes and hypertension. The court had previously rebuffed apologies from Ramdev and Balkrishna, characterizing them as insincere and merely perfunctory. In the most recent hearing on April 16, the duo was instructed to appear before the court and demonstrate genuine contrition.
In the published advertisement featured in a leading Hindi daily, Patanjali conveyed its utmost veneration for the Supreme Court’s authority. The message conveyed in the ad included a heartfelt apology for the errors made in disseminating advertisements and conducting press conferences despite assurances made by the company’s legal representatives. Additionally, Patanjali pledged a steadfast commitment to avoid repeating such lapses in the future.
Following queries from the media subsequent to the previous hearing, Ramdev responded, stating,
“I have conveyed my sentiments as required. I maintain complete faith in the judiciary.”
Patanjali’s public apology represents a notable development in its ongoing legal dispute, reflecting a proactive effort to address concerns raised by the judiciary regarding the company’s marketing practices. As the case progresses, the sincerity of such gestures will likely play a pivotal role in determining the outcome and restoring confidence in Patanjali’s adherence to legal and ethical standards.
The courtroom drama surrounding Ramdev and Balkrishna’s apologies reached a crescendo when the court, disdaining their earlier attempts at contrition, highlighted that the apologies were initially disseminated to the media before reaching the court.
“Till the matter hit the court, the contemnors did not find it fit to send us the affidavits. They believe in publicity clearly,”
-remarked Justice Hima Kohli, underscoring the court’s frustration with the manner in which the apologies were handled.
Echoing these sentiments, Justice A Amanullah, also presiding on the bench, emphasized that mere apologies were insufficient. He emphasized the need for accountability, suggesting that the contemnors should face consequences for flouting the court’s directives.
The genesis of this legal skirmish traces back to the tumultuous years of the Covid pandemic when Patanjali introduced Coronil in 2021, heralding it as the “first evidence-based medicine for COVID-19.” However, controversy ensued when Patanjali asserted that Coronil held certification from the World Health Organization, a claim vehemently refuted by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) as a “blatant lie.”
Tensions escalated further when a video surfaced featuring Ramdev denigrating allopathy as a “stupid and bankrupt science,” prompting the IMA to issue a legal notice demanding an apology. In response, Patanjali Yogpeeth clarified that Ramdev’s remarks were sourced from a forwarded WhatsApp message and reiterated his respect for modern science.
The conflict reached a boiling point in August 2022 when the IMA filed a petition against Patanjali following an advertisement titled ‘Misconceptions Spread By Allopathy,‘ wherein Patanjali claimed its products cured various diseases. The IMA decried Patanjali’s dissemination of misinformation and false claims about curing illnesses through its products as a “continuous, systematic, and unabated” practice.
In a stern warning on November 21 of the same year, the Supreme Court cautioned Patanjali against making such claims, threatening severe penalties. Subsequently, Patanjali’s counsel pledged compliance with all laws, particularly those governing advertisements and product branding.
However, on January 15 of the following year, the Supreme Court received an anonymous letter addressed to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alleging that Patanjali continued to release misleading advertisements. Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing the IMA, presented evidence including newspaper advertisements and transcripts of a press conference held by Ramdev and Balkrishna after the court’s warning on November 21, 2023.
The unfolding saga underscores the contentious battle between traditional and alternative medical paradigms and the judiciary’s role in regulating the dissemination of information and upholding public trust in healthcare. As the legal proceedings unfold, the ramifications for Patanjali and the broader discourse on healthcare misinformation remain paramount.
The legal saga surrounding Patanjali reached a critical juncture as the court, dissatisfied with Patanjali’s response, demanded an explanation as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the company. Despite this directive, on March 19, it came to light that Patanjali had failed to file a reply to the contempt notice. Consequently, the court summoned Ramdev and Balkrishna to appear in person.
The court’s patience wore thin during the April 2 hearing when it castigated Ramdev and Balkrishna for their “absolute defiance” in failing to submit proper affidavits regarding the misleading advertisements. The apex court’s ire intensified on April 10 when it rebuffed the apologies tendered by the duo, citing their initial dissemination to the media before reaching the court.
The sequence of events underscores the gravity of the court’s concerns regarding Patanjali’s alleged disregard for legal processes and the judiciary’s authority. The court’s unwavering stance against non-compliance highlights the importance of upholding judicial directives and underscores the consequences of flouting legal obligations.
As the legal battle unfolds, the implications for Patanjali and its founders become increasingly significant, potentially shaping the outcome of the contentious dispute over misleading advertisements.
CASE TITLE:
Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Baba Ramdev
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
