The Supreme Court Today (April 30th) took strong exception to comments made by Indian Medical Association (IMA) President Dr RV Asokan against the top court in relation to the Patanjali misleading ads case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: 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 criticizing 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.
Highlighting the significance of the interview’s publication, Rohatgi announced his intention to file a contempt application, stating,
“It is an Economics Times interview, not some small newspaper. Milord, President of IMA! Not a small functionary. I am filing a contempt application.”
Justice Kohli acknowledged Rohatgi’s statement with
“let it be filed,”
to which Rohatgi affirmed,
“I will do what needs to be done.”
The court then granted permission for Rohatgi to officially record the interview as part of the case documentation, allowing the justices to assess the situation further. Justice Amanullah noted the importance of placing the interview on record to facilitate a subsequent determination of appropriate legal action.
CASE TITLE:
Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Patanjali Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
