Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balkrishna are in the Supreme Court Today (April 16th) as it hears the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved in connection with its misleading ads and Covid cure claims. The court had come down heavily on the Patanjali founders during the previous hearing last week.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Yoga gurus Ramdev and his close associate Balkrishna found themselves before the Supreme Court today, embroiled in a contempt case tied to Patanjali Ayurved. The allegations against the company stem from its purportedly misleading advertisements and audacious claims regarding COVID-19 cures. This legal confrontation marks a significant chapter in the ongoing scrutiny of Patanjali Ayurved’s promotional strategies, especially during the tumultuous COVID-19 period.
This morning, the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah called the Patanjali founders forward and told them they have made significant contribution to yoga.
“We respect what you have done for yoga,”
–the bench said.
The two have said they are ready to offer a public applogy. Ramdev said it was never his intention to bring down the prestige of the Supreme Court.
The court pointed to their “attitude” and questioned why they shot down other systems of medicine to stress the benefits of Ayurveda.
“Personality does not matter.. you understand.. i understand but others don’t..”
:Justice A Amanullah
“Majesty of the court is above us.. who sit here do not matter.. balance is very important.. this also reaffirms rule of law..”
:Justice Hima Kohli
The Supreme Court’s stance became notably stern in the previous session, criticizing not only the founders for their questionable advertising practices but also the Uttarakhand government for its leniency towards the Haridwar-based conglomerate. Amidst this legal tussle, the bench, composed of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah, acknowledged the duo’s contributions to popularizing yoga but simultaneously highlighted the gravity of their actions.
In an intriguing turn of events, Ramdev expressed readiness to issue a public apology, emphasizing his unintended disrespect towards the court’s prestige. However, the justices pointedly questioned the sincerity behind this gesture, reflecting on previous instances where apologies seemed more a bid for publicity than genuine remorse.
This legal scuffle can be traced back to Patanjali’s introduction of Coronil in 2021, a product Ramdev touted as the “first evidence-based medicine for COVID-19,” a claim that sparked immediate backlash from the Indian Medical Association (IMA). The controversy intensified with a video of Ramdev dismissing allopathy as “stupid and bankrupt science,” exacerbating tensions between traditional Ayurvedic and modern medical communities.
The IMA’s grievances extend beyond individual comments, focusing on a pattern of misinformation allegedly propagated by Patanjali through advertisements claiming its products could cure diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, and more without scientific validation.
“Your apology is not persuading this court. It is more of a lip service,”
-the Supreme Court said, rejecting their apology, and asked them to file affidavits within a week.
This set of apologies was rejected on April 10 after the Supreme Court after the court noted that they were sent to the media first.
The Supreme Court’s response has been firm, warning of severe financial penalties for continued misleading claims and underscoring the necessity for Patanjali to adhere strictly to advertisement and branding regulations. Despite assurances from Patanjali’s counsel, the appearance of new questionable advertisements prompted the court to question the company’s commitment to compliance.
This saga underlines a broader debate on the intersection of traditional Indian practices with modern healthcare principles, emphasizing the critical need for responsible communication and substantiated claims in public health discussions. As the case progresses, the Indian judiciary’s role in regulating health-related advertising and upholding consumer rights remains a pivotal element of this ongoing dialogue.
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
