The Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurveda, Acharya Balkrishna, filed a plea against the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Dr. RV Asokan, for disparaging remarks about the Supreme Court. This arises from the Court’s criticism of IMA’s unethical practices. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court is hearing a petition by IMA against Patanjali Ayurveda for misleading advertisements.
Today (30th April): The Supreme Court rebuked the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for inaction in a case involving misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurveda. The court criticized Patanjali for non-compliance with its orders but appreciated the improvement in their actions after issuing a public apology. The court highlighted the need for caution and responsible advertising practices.
![[Patanjali Fake Ads Case] SC Reserves Verdict in Contempt Of Court Against Patanjali](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/patanjali1.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
![[BREAKING] Ramdev, Patanjali Publish New and 'BIGGER' Apology Today | A Day After SC Rap](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image-47-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Following a Supreme Court reprimand, Patanjali co-founders Ramdev and Balkrishna issued a new, more prominent public apology in newspapers, acknowledging their non-compliance with court directions and vowing to rectify their mistakes. The apology addresses misleading advertisements and emphasizes their commitment to abide by the court’s instructions. The court scheduled a hearing on April 30 to review the matter.
Today (23rd April):The Supreme Court criticized the Indian Medical Association (IMA) for prescribing expensive and unnecessary medicines, urging the IMA to rectify its internal issues and uphold ethical standards. The court emphasized close scrutiny of cases where the IMA endorses costly treatments and directed licensing authorities and the IMA to be involved in a case addressing misleading health claims.
Today(on 16th April), The Supreme Court of India engaged with Patanjali promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, to assess their sincerity over misleading ads disparaging modern medicine. The apology was deemed insufficient, and the case is adjourned till April 23 for further commitment demonstration. The Indian Medical Association filed the plea, citing a smear campaign against modern medicine and COVID-19 vaccination efforts.
The Supreme Court fined an intervention applicant Rs.10,000 for attempting to join a case against Patanjali Ayurved with misleading claims. The applicant alleged a quack doctor’s role in their mother’s death, but the court dismissed the application, warning against manipulating the legal process. Patanjali faced criticism for misleading advertisements and offered an unconditional apology.
On Wednesday (10th April): The Supreme Court of India expressed concern for public well-being, particularly regarding misleading advertisements and unregulated products. Justices emphasized that violations of the law, such as exploiting people’s trust with misleading claims, will not be tolerated. This relates to a recent contempt plea against Patanjali for marketing its product, Coronil, as a COVID-19 cure, violating drug advertising regulations.
NEW DELHI: Today (10th April): The Supreme Court has rejected Patanjali’s unconditional apology for misleading advertisements, criticizing the company for deliberate disobedience. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized that leniency would not be shown. Patanjali founders acknowledged the breach, but the court disapproved, asserting the seriousness of the matter. The case pertains to false advertisements for Patanjali’s medicinal products.
Today (2nd April): The Supreme Court chastised Patanjali Ayurved for airing misleading advertisements for its ayurvedic products, demanding a more substantial apology for breaching its commitment. The Court expressed disappointment in Patanjali’s casual apology affidavit and hinted at perjury charges due to document discrepancies. Both Ramdev and Patanjali’s Managing Director are required to appear personally at the next hearing.