+

Patanjali issues unconditional apology in SC over misleading advertisements

Patanjali Ayurveda has submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court, offering an unequivocal apology regarding the issue of misleading advertisements. The move comes after both Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna were directed to personally appear before the court on April 2 for failing to respond to a contempt notice. In the affidavit, Acharya Balkrishna expressed […]

Patanjali Ayurveda has submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court, offering an unequivocal apology regarding the issue of misleading advertisements. The move comes after both Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna were directed to personally appear before the court on April 2 for failing to respond to a contempt notice.

In the affidavit, Acharya Balkrishna expressed regret over the company’s advertisement, acknowledging the presence of derogatory phrases. This development follows the Supreme Court’s previous directive to both Ramdev and Balkrishna to appear in person after they neglected to address the court’s notice.

The court, presided over by Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the company and Balkrishna for not responding to earlier court notices. Consequently, a notice was issued, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for potentially violating their commitment to the court.

Furthermore, the court issued a similar notice to Ramdev, in connection with a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) accusing him of orchestrating a campaign against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicines.

Given the gravity of the situation, the court deemed it appropriate to summon Ramdev and Balkrishna for the upcoming hearing. It emphasized the relevance of the advertisements released by Patanjali, as they were central to the affidavit submitted to the court on November 21, 2023.

The court underscored the necessity for the Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurveda to be present at the next hearing. In seeking explanations for Patanjali’s and Balkrishna’s failure to respond to the contempt proceedings, the bench initiated a show-cause inquiry.

Tags: