Supreme Court Rebukes Patanjali Over Misleading Ads

The Court Asks Why Govt Didn’t Take Action

Newsreel Asia Insight #180
April 3, 2024

Ministry of Home Affairs

The Supreme Court rebuked Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to air misleading advertisements that disparaged modern medicine, despite a court order to stop, and questioned the Central government’s lack of action against such claims. Patanjali claimed to have created products that could completely cure COVID-19.

Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah criticised the company for its casual approach to the court’s directives and highlighted the government’s failure to adequately address Patanjali’s misleading promotions during the COVID-19 pandemic, Bar and Bench reported.

Patanjali’s media wing claimed ignorance of the court’s ban on their advertisements, a statement the court found indefensible. Justice Kohli condemned the company’s disregard for its solemn undertaking, while Justice Amanullah dismissed Patanjali’s conditional apology as insufficient.

Representing Patanjali’s founder Baba Ramdev, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh faced the court’s frustration over the absence of the reply in the record, according to Live Law. Justice Amanullah warned, “Now, we will take note of the Perjury. Mr. Balbir Singh be prepared of all consequences…separate perjury cases will start against both of you... We do not hide behind the back, we are opening our cards. Perjury at this level, at this proceeding!”

Justice Kohli pointed out, “You said documents have been attached, but the documents were created later on. This is a clear case of perjury! We are not closing the doors on you but we are telling all that we have noted.”

Perjury occurs when someone knowingly makes a false statement while under oath during a court proceeding. It is a serious offense because it undermines the integrity of the judicial system.

The bench also criticised Baba Ramdev for his conduct following the court’s warnings against misleading advertising. Despite Ramdev’s counsel asserting that the court’s strictures would serve as a lesson, the justices emphasised the need for adherence to the rule of law and expressed their serious approach to the contempt case.

The Supreme Court’s interaction with the Central government revealed concerns about the lack of action against Patanjali’s claims during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court questioned why the AYUSH Ministry did not publicise its stance that ayurvedic products were merely supplements, not cures. Justice Kohli pointed out the government’s inaction despite Patanjali’s continued misleading claims.

Senior advocates representing both sides presented their arguments. Patanjali’s counsel argued that the company’s intentions were not purely commercial, a claim the court rejected. The Indian Medical Association’s advocate highlighted Patanjali’s attempt to shift blame to its media department.

Despite the Union’s claim of issuing a warning to Patanjali, the court emphasised that the law required more stringent actions than mere warnings.

Justice Kohli stressed the importance of dispelling any notion of complicity between the government and Patanjali in undermining other medical fields.

Referring to the Ministry of Ayush, and as reported by Live Law, Justice Kohli said, “Because the contemnors were going to town saying that this is the answer and the cure and there is nothing available in the modern science that can address it (COVID-19). And they were aware of the fact that they were cautioned to not do that. We are assuming even if you did not put it in the public domain, at least you told them that it is nothing more than a supplementary, do not tom-tom it as a cure. Still, you chose to keep your eyes shut. We are wondering why Union of India did it?”

The court’s order included the State Licensing Authority as a party in the proceedings, indicating the seriousness of Patanjali’s legal violations.

The State Licensing Authority is a regulatory body responsible for issuing licenses and overseeing compliance with legal standards in various sectors, including healthcare and pharmaceuticals. The court is ensuring that the regulatory body is directly involved in addressing and rectifying the issues related to Patanjali's misleading advertisements and compliance with the law.

Patanjali’s leadership, including Balkrishna and Ramdev, faced the court’s scrutiny for their actions post the initial contempt notice. The court’s insistence on a more sincere apology and adherence to legal obligations reflect the gravity of the case.