The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accept the unconditional apology by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved MD Balkrishna in the misleading advertisements case.
In a scathing rebuke to the repeated apologies submitted by Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna over misleading advertisements, the Supreme Court today said that “we are not blind,” and that the court isn’t going to go easy in this case. The court came down heavily on the Uttarakhand licensing authority for its prolonged inaction against Patanjali, and also noted its dissatisfaction with the Centre”s response to the matter.
“The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking,” the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah said.
“We don’t accept it (apology), we decline to accept this. We consider it a willful, deliberate disobedience of the undertaking,” the court added.
The bench pointed out how the founders” sent their apologies to the media first. “Till the matter hit the court, the contemnors did not find it fit to send us the affidavits. They sent it to the media first, till 7.30 pm yesterday it was not uploaded for us. They believe in publicity clearly,” Justice Kohli said.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Patanjali founders, acknowledged a procedural oversight regarding the timing of the apologies” submission but vouched for their sincerity.
As he read out the affidavits, Justice Amanullah said, “You are defrauding the affidavit. Who drafted it, I am surprised.”
Rohatgi then explained that there was a “lapse”, to which the court replied, “Very small word”.
Justice Amanullah then wondered if the apology is “even heartfelt”. “What else needs to be said, my lords, we will. He is not (a) professional litigant. People make mistakes in life,” Rohatgi responded.
“Even after our orders? Tendering apology is not enough. You should suffer the consequences for violating the court”s order. We do not want to be generous in this case,” Justice Amanullah emphasised.
The court stressed the need to convey a message to society regarding the gravity of the issue, framing it not simply as a matter concerning one FMCG company but as a broader violation of the law and public trust.
“(This is) not just about one FMCG but violation of the law. Look at your replies to state authority when they asked you to withdraw, you said HC said no coercive steps against us. We are making it a part of your conduct, (the) larger picture is your conduct with the public at large but saying it is in good faith.”
Turning to the Uttarakhand government next, the court questioned the inaction of licensing inspectors and ordered the immediate suspension of three officers. “We have strong objection to the use of the word “bonafide” for officers. We are not going to take (it) lightly. We will rip you apart,” it said, saying that officers were just “pushing files”.
“In 2021, the ministry wrote to the Uttarakhand licensing authority against a misleading advertisement. In response, the company gave a response to the licensing authority. However, the authority let off the company with a warning. The 1954 Act does not provide for warning and there is no provision for compounding the offence,” the court said.
“This has happened six times, back and forth back and forth, the licensing inspector remained quiet. There is no report by the officer. The person appointed subsequently acted the same way. All those three officers should be suspended right now,” it said, adding that the licensing authority was “in cahoots with the contemnors”.
When the Uttarakhand counsel assured the court of action, Justice Kohli remarked, “Thank God, now you have woken up at last and realise that there is a statute existing.”
“What about all the faceless people who have consumed these Patanjali medicines stated to cure diseases which cannot be cured. Can you do this to an ordinary person?” the court said. The licensing authority apologised to the court and assured that they will surely act in the matter.
The court further noted attempts by Ramdev and Balkrishna to avoid physical appearance in court by claiming overseas travel. It criticised the state licensing authority for its indifference and the dismissive attitude of Divya pharmacy towards state warnings.
The court mandated all district ayurvedic and unani officers from 2018 onwards to provide reports on actions taken against misleading ads. It scheduled further orders on the matter concerning Ramdev and Balkrishna for April 16.
