Yoga guru Ramdev and his associate Balkrishna, representing Patanjali Ayurved Limited, have issued another public apology in newspapers for failing to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives in a case involving misleading advertisements. This apology, published today, is notably larger and more prominent than the previous one, which was published yesterday. However, the court had raised concerns about the size of yesterday’s apology, questioning if it matched the scale of the misleading advertisements.
The apology published today covers a significant portion of a newspaper page and is titled “Unconditional Public Apology.” It acknowledges the ongoing legal proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Writ Petition C. No. 645/2022) and expresses sincere regret for the non-compliance or disobedience of the court’s orders. Ramdev, Balkrishna, and Patanjali Ayurved Limited vow to rectify their mistake, promising not to repeat such errors in the future. They also commit to adhering to the court’s directives with utmost sincerity and upholding the majesty of the law.
Read Also: Electoral Bond: Contempt of court against SBI
In contrast, yesterday’s apology was smaller and did not specifically mention the names of Ramdev and Balkrishna, raising questions about its effectiveness in addressing the court’s concerns.
During the court proceedings, the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah inquired about the prominence of the apology, emphasizing whether it matched the font and size of the earlier misleading advertisements. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Ramdev and Balkrishna, informed the court that the apology was published in 67 newspapers at a cost of ₹10 lakh. However, the court insisted on seeing the actual size of the advertisements, stressing that they should not be enlarged but provided in their original dimensions. This directive highlights the court’s insistence on transparency and accountability in addressing the issue.
The case stems from Patanjali’s claims during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly regarding its drug Coronil, which was touted as the “first evidence-based medicine for COVID-19.” Despite assertions of certification from the World Health Organization, the Indian Medical Association denounced these claims as false. Tensions escalated following Ramdev’s remarks disparaging modern medicine, prompting legal action from the medical community.
In August 2022, the Indian Medical Association filed a petition against Patanjali after it published advertisements spreading misinformation about allopathic medicine. The court intervened, warning Patanjali against such claims and threatening heavy fines. Despite assurances from Patanjali’s counsel to comply with legal standards in advertising, the company continued to publish misleading advertisements, prompting further scrutiny from the court.
The court’s attention was drawn to the issue after receiving an anonymous letter highlighting Patanjali’s persistent dissemination of misleading advertisements. Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing the Indian Medical Association, presented evidence of these advertisements, including transcripts of press conferences by Ramdev and Balkrishna. The court sought a response from Patanjali on why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against it, signaling the seriousness of the matter.
Subsequent court hearings revealed Patanjali’s failure to file a proper reply to the contempt notice, leading to a summons for Ramdev and Balkrishna to appear in person. The court criticized their “absolute defiance” and rejected their initial apologies as insincere, describing them as mere lip service. Consequently, Ramdev and Balkrishna were asked to demonstrate genuine remorse in subsequent hearings, underscoring the court’s insistence on accountability and transparency.
In conclusion, the repeated apologies from Patanjali Ayurved Limited, represented by Ramdev and Balkrishna, underscore the gravity of the issue concerning misleading advertisements. The court’s scrutiny highlights the importance of upholding legal standards and the integrity of advertising practices. As the case progresses, it remains imperative for all parties involved to demonstrate genuine commitment to rectifying past mistakes and complying with the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
