The Managing Director of Patanjali filed a plea against the Indian Medical Association’s MD concerning remarks made about the Supreme Court. The Patanjali MD’s objection arises from the IMA MD’s questioning of why the Court targeting them.
NEW DELHI: Recently, Acharya Balkrishna, the Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurveda, filed a plea in the Supreme Court, demanding action against Dr. RV Asokan, the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA). Balkrishna alleges that Dr. Asokan made disparaging remarks concerning the court’s observations on the conduct of doctors. The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanudin Amanullah is scheduled to hear the case on Tuesday.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Criticizes IMA for Prescribing Expensive, Unnecessary Medicines
During an interview with a news agency, IMA President Dr. Asokan expressed his disappointment over the Supreme Court’s criticism of the IMA and private doctors’ practices. He described the court’s views as a broadside that does not befit its stature. Dr. Asokan further claimed that the court’s statements were unclear and had demoralized private practitioners.
Acharya Balkrishna, in his application, accuses Dr. Asokan of directly interfering with the ongoing proceedings and the administration of justice. He labels Dr. Asokan’s statements as condemnable and an attempt to undermine the court’s dignity and the authority of the law in the eyes of the public. The plea seeks appropriate legal action against Dr. Asokan for his remarks.
READ ALSO: “Be Prepared for More Serious Consequences”: SC Warned IMA President in Patanjali Case
Simultaneously, the Supreme Court is hearing a petition filed by the IMA against Patanjali Ayurveda. The petition alleges that Patanjali Ayurveda has been disseminating misleading advertisements. The AYUSH Department of the Central Government submitted an affidavit to the court, revealing that a total of 36,040 complaints have been registered since 2018 regarding misleading advertisements. However, only 354 cases have had action taken against them.
According to the affidavit, the highest number of actions against misleading advertisements, amounting to 206 cases, have been recorded in Rajasthan. Tamil Nadu follows with the highest number of complaints of 4,230.
On April 30th, the Supreme Court expressed significant displeasure over remarks made by Dr. RV Asokan, the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), in a media interview regarding the ongoing Patanjali misleading ads litigation.
Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah responded sternly after Baba Ramdev’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, brought Asokan’s comments to the court’s attention.
Rohatgi relayed Asokan’s words from the interview:
“I have come across a very disturbing interview yesterday by IMA President saying why is Court pointing fingers at us. This is direct interference with Court! He says these are unfortunate, vague comments by Supreme Court, that it does not behoove the Supreme Court.”
Justice Amanullah responded to this by instructing,
“Bring it on record. This will be more serious than what has been happening till now. Be prepared for more serious consequences.”
The case against Patanjali, which the IMA initiated, saw the Court criticize the association on April 23, advising it to address unethical practices among its members, particularly concerning the prescription of unnecessary and expensive medications. The court observed,
“The petitioner (IMA) needs to put its own house in order regarding alleged unethical acts of the petitioner organisation where medicines are prescribed which are expensive and unnecessary. Whenever there is a misuse of the position by the petitioner association to prescribe expensive medicines and the line of treatment needs closer examination.”
Following the court’s remarks, Asokan reportedly told the media that it was “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court had criticized the IMA and practices of private doctors, stating that such “vague and generalized statements” had demoralized private doctors. This interview was widely reported, including by The Economic Times.
Recently, the Supreme Court directed an intervention applicant to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 after requesting to join as a co-petitioner with the Indian Medical Association (IMA) in its Writ Petition against Patanjali Ayurved.
The applicant claimed that Patanjali Ayurved had spread misleading advertisements and contended that a person posing as an allopathic doctor, whose treatment allegedly led to the death of the applicant’s mother in 2019, should be held responsible. However, the Court dismissed the application.
During the hearing, the person intervening clarified that the individual mentioned in their application was referred to as a doctor based on the individual’s own claim, despite lacking the necessary qualifications. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah addressed the Intervention Application before proceeding with the main case against Patanjali.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the apology affidavit submitted by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, prominent figures associated with Patanjali Ayurveda. Notably, the Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the alleged inaction of the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority regarding Patanjali and issued a stern warning, stating, “We will rip you apart.”
Justice Kohli initially questioned the counsel representing the intervention applicant about the purpose and grounds of the application. The counsel responded by stating that the application sought impleadment as a petitioner. Justice Amanullah interjected, affirming that the applicant’s mother had received treatment from an allopathic doctor. However, the counsel clarified that the person in question was a quack without appropriate qualifications.
Justice Kohli expressed reservations about the intervention applicant’s choice to file the petition directly in the Supreme Court. She queried why the issue had not been brought before a lower court and accused the applicant of exploiting the petition for publicity. Justice Amanullah echoed these concerns, indicating that it seemed to be a case of proxy litigation initiated by the applicant, with claims against the alleged allopathic doctor.
The counsel elaborated that the individual in question held a PhD, not qualifications as an allopathic doctor. Despite this clarification, the Court dismissed the application, considering it “completely baseless,” and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000 on the intervention applicant.
Following this, the lawyer requested authorization to retract the application, highlighting the seriousness of the matter. Justice Kohli questioned the timeline of the mother’s demise and expressed surprise that no legal action had been pursued for five years.
The counsel explained that a criminal complaint and an FIR had been filed, emphasizing their commitment to pursuing the case through various forums.
