Today(13th August), the Supreme Court closed the contempt case against yoga guru Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna after they agreed to cease issuing misleading advertisements and claims about Patanjali Ayurved products.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 13th August),The Supreme Court of India has dropped contempt of court charges against them, bringing a close to a case that had put Patanjali Ayurved under intense legal scrutiny. The charges were related to the dissemination of misleading advertisements by the company, which had sparked a widespread debate about the ethics and responsibilities of alternative medicine practitioners in promoting their products.
Background of the Case
The controversy dates back to the early 2020s when Patanjali Ayurved, under the leadership of Baba Ramdev and Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, launched several advertising campaigns that claimed to offer cures for diseases without evidence-based backing. These campaigns specifically targeted modern medicine, often positioning Ayurveda as a superior alternative. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a plea against these campaigns, which led to the Supreme Court’s involvement.
The Court had previously issued strict warnings to the company regarding its misleading claims, emphasizing that-
“the dissemination of false information under the guise of traditional medicine is not just unethical but also dangerous.”
Court’s Initial Actions and Patanjali’s Response
In response to the IMA’s plea, the Supreme Court had initially imposed a temporary ban on the advertisements in February 2023, stating that Patanjali’s claims were “misleading and potentially harmful.” This move was accompanied by contempt of court notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. Despite these notices, the Court found that the company continued to publish misleading advertisements, which led to the threat of imposing significant penalties.
The Court warned that for every false claim made in each advertisement, Patanjali could face costs of Rs.1 crore. The bench, comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, expressed their concerns, stating-
“Such advertisements not only deceive the public but also undermine the credibility of both traditional and modern medicine.”
During the proceedings, the Court had directed Patanjali not to publish false advertisements in the future, a directive that the company failed to comply with entirely, prompting further legal action.
Apology and Subsequent Developments
Faced with mounting legal pressure, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna issued multiple public apologies. Initially, the apologies were deemed insufficient by the Court. On April 16, 2023, the Court granted Ramdev and Balkrishna one week to issue a more comprehensive public apology. Although the court did not explicitly mention this requirement in its order, the company followed through and issued a larger public apology, which was later accepted by the Court.
However, the process was not without its hurdles. On April 10, 2023, the Supreme Court refused to accept a second affidavit tendered by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna that offered an unconditional apology. The Court was critical of the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for not taking action against Patanjali Ayurved, highlighting a potential “hand-in-glove” relationship between the company and the state authorities.
“We will rip you apart,”
-the Court had warned the Uttarakhand Licensing Authority when Senior Counsel Dhruv Mehta, representing the Authority, argued that they had acted under a “bonafide impression” regarding a Bombay High Court order related to the regulation of such advertisements under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
ALSO READ: Trademark Infringement| Patanjali Fined Rs 50 Lakh by Bombay HC
On the date of the final hearing, the Supreme Court discharged the contempt notices against Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered the judgment, stating that the Court was accepting the “unconditional apology” tendered by the founders of Patanjali Ayurved. The Court also warned them “not to violate the Court’s orders in the future,” thereby closing the contempt proceedings against them.
Notably, on April 23, the Bench raised concerns regarding the size and visibility of the public apology initially issued by Patanjali, leading the company to publish a larger, more prominent apology. This was a critical moment in the proceedings, underscoring the Court’s insistence on accountability and transparency in public communications by large corporations.
Broader Impact on Consumer Goods and Modern Medicine
The Supreme Court’s judgment has broader implications beyond Patanjali Ayurved. The Court’s scrutiny of misleading advertisements extends to other consumer goods companies as well, particularly those in the wellness and health sectors. The bench has made it clear that social media influencers and celebrities endorsing such products could also be held liable if the advertisements are found to be misleading.
Justice Amanullah emphasized that “Patanjali’s case will be used as a test case,” indicating that this judgment could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future. The Court’s reluctance to turn the matter into a “debate of Allopathy vs. Ayurveda” reflects a balanced approach, aiming to protect public health without undermining traditional medicine systems.