+

SC raps Patanjali, summons Ramdev

The Supreme Court has criticized Patanjali Ayurved for its failure to address a notice regarding the dissemination of misleading advertisements, ordering yoga guru Ramdev to personally appear before it. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s bench also summoned Patanjali’s managing director, Acharya Balkrishna. Last month, the Supreme Court had rebuked Patanjali for apparently breaching its […]

In the last hearing, the top court issued notice to Ayurvedic Company asking it to show cause why the contempt of action should not be initiated against the company and its managing director.
In the last hearing, the top court issued notice to Ayurvedic Company asking it to show cause why the contempt of action should not be initiated against the company and its managing director.

The Supreme Court has criticized Patanjali Ayurved for its failure to address a notice regarding the dissemination of misleading advertisements, ordering yoga guru Ramdev to personally appear before it. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s bench also summoned Patanjali’s managing director, Acharya Balkrishna.

Last month, the Supreme Court had rebuked Patanjali for apparently breaching its assurances regarding product quality and effectiveness, prompting a notice to the company and Balkrishna to explain why contempt proceedings shouldn’t be initiated. “Why haven’t you filed your response yet? We will ask the managing director to appear in court during the next hearing,” the court remarked.

The court’s order highlights the alleged violations by both Balkrishna under Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Remedies Act, pertaining to misleading advertisements of medicinal products. Furthermore, a show cause notice was issued to Ramdev, co-founder of Patanjali, requiring him to justify why he shouldn’t face contempt charges.

Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali Ayurved, contested this action, questioning Ramdev’s involvement. However, the court insisted on addressing the matter further at the next hearing.

“We had our hands tied earlier but not now. As an officer of the court, you (Mr Rohatgi) should know your position,” Justice Amanullah asserted.

The court was reviewing a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which alleged a smear campaign by Patanjali against vaccination drives and modern medicine. On February 27, the court had issued a show cause notice to Patanjali and warned against making adverse statements about any medical system in the media. It also criticized the government for its inaction, stating they were turning a blind eye to the situation.

In the last hearing, the top court issued notice to Ayurvedic Company asking it to show cause why the contempt of action should not be initiated against the company and its managing director for giving misleading advertisements.

The top court had observed that the ayurvedic company has prima facie violated the top court’s order dated November 2023 where it cautioned against misleading advertisements about its medicines.

The court had also restrained the Ayurvedic Company (Patanjali Ayurved) from advertising or branding of their products specified as treating disease under the drugs norms and also cautioned it from making any statements against any system of medicine in the media.

The court observation came when it noted that the company has given alleged misleading advertisements.

The court was dealing with the Indian Medical Association’s plea seeking to frame guidelines for prohibiting false and misleading advertisements concerning Allopathy and Modern Medicine.

IMA, a registered Society, has more than 3,30,000 medical doctors as its members all over the country.

The petition also raised the issue that the campaign of misguidance, misinformation and disparagement against the modern system of medicine.

IMA, in its plea, had sought to pass an order directing the Centre and others to immediately take strict and prompt action, following law, for the violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the repeated acts of omission and commission of Respondent Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. including by publishing advertisements all over the country making illegal and prohibited claims.

Tags: