SC tells IMA; expresses concern about the extent of Patanjali’s public apology in the newspapers

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitted on behalf of the proposed competitors, “We have published a voluntary public apology.”

Judge Kohli said: ‘Where? Why hasn’t it been submitted? Why did you wait a whole week?’

‘The language had to be changed’ Rohatgi submitted.

To this, Justice Kohli stated that the same should be filed first. “We refuse to take these bundles to court. Whatever you want to do, you submit it…we can’t go through the bundles now. Is the advertisement the same size as the one you normally place in the newspaper?”she asked.

Rohatgi claimed: ‘No, that’s not it. But Your Honor, I have done it in 67 newspapers, it costs tens of lakhs.”

“Okay, we will look into it. Doesn’t it cost the same tens of lakhs if you make a full page ad, we are wondering, we won’t say anything until we see it. Submit it, Mr. Rohatgi,” said Justice Kohli.

While scheduling the case for further hearing on April 30, the Court said: ‘Cut out the newspaper clippings and keep them handy. If you want to copy them by enlarging them, this may not impress us. We want to see the actual size of the ad.”

To this end, the Senior Advocate Balbir Singh have indicated that they will issue an additional public apology advertisement.

“The said advertisements have not been registered, it should be done within two days. It is further stated that additional advertisements will be issued by the proposed contenders as when they are filed, documents will be registered.” the Court noted.

When he came to the IMA, the Court said: “First, the petitioner must first put his own house in order.”

The Bank further said: “We are not just looking at the Respondent (Patanjali), there are others on the other side, who may not be in front of us, but after going through the kind of reporting that has recently been brought to our attention about the misleading advertisements for things like food for babies, which we understand are under the control of the Union… We cannot allow the public to be fooled, little children, babies… If that happens, the Union of India must activate itself and so the state licensing authorities among you….”

During the course of the hearing, the Court also took note of the fact that a request for intervention has been filed by a person who is currently in default at the Registry. The intervener has sought imposition of costs of Rs.1,000 crore on the IMA for filing the writ petition.

“An applicant who is very keen to support your client (Patanjali). We are under the impression that this is a proxy battle being fought at your behest. This applicant wants us to impose the cost of a thousand rupees on IMA for filing this ‘misleading Petition’,” noted Justice Kohli.

When asked whether a copy of the application to intervene had been served on all other parties, the Court answered in the negative.

‘I have nothing to do with it. I have no idea. There are all kinds of people, sir,’ Rohatgi submitted.

Justice Kohli further said: “We are very curious about the timing of this Application. It seems to us more like an ‘Intruder’ than an ‘Intervenor’. So there is something to be said about this Applicant, but we prefer to wait until the objections have been honored. deleted, if any, and have it refiled.”

Rohatgi proposed that costs be imposed on the intervener and that the application be dismissed. To this, judge Kohli said: “Let the counsel and the party appear, he is in person so we must have him with us. Whatever the cost, we will investigate and let him make his submissions on the next date before us.”

The Bench pointedly questioned the Union about a letter written by a Union official asking for disregard of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Court highlighted a 2023 letter from the AYUSH ministry, which advised the state governments not to take action under this rule. The letter even hinted at the possible repeal of Article 170, which deals with measures against misleading advertising.

The Bench also sought an explanation from the government on the issuance of this letter and the proposed abrogation of Article 170. Additional Advocate General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing on behalf of the Union of India assured the Court that the government would provide clarification.

The Court emphasized the need to protect consumers against misleading advertising, especially advertising relating to medicines and healthcare products. The Court underlined the importance of enforcing laws such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Offensive Advertisements) Act to protect public health and prevent misinformation.

Moreover, the Court directed that the Central Consumer Affairs Department and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting be included as parties to the case. The Court also directed all State Licensing Authorities of all States and Union Territories to be added as parties as well. “The said ministries will file an affidavit stating the steps taken from the year 2018 and the action taken on such complaints.” the Court ruled.

Accordingly, the Court scheduled the matter for the hearing of the contemnors on April 30 and the larger issue on May 7.

Patanjali Ayurved has issued a public apology in a daily newspaper, which reads:

“Patanjali Ayurved fully respects the dignity of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We sincerely apologize for the mistake in publishing advertisements and holding press conference even after our lawyers made a statement in the Apex Court. We are committed to not to allow such a mistake to happen will be repeated forever in the future. We assure you that we will remain committed to upholding the Constitution and the dignity of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

Pertinently, the Court had on April 16 given Ramdev, Balkrishna and Patanjali a week’s time to issue a public apology, though it did not expressly mention so in the order, and directed the duo to be present in person on the next date . also of hearing.

It is to be noted that on April 10, the Court had refused to accept the second affidavit filing an unconditional apology by Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna over Patanjali Ayurved’s alleged ‘misleading advertisements’. The Court had also pulled up the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for failing to take action against Patanjali Ayurved for publishing ‘misleading advertisements’. The Court had told the State Licensing Authority, “We will tear you apart” when Senior Counsel Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the Authority, alleged that it was acting under bona fide impression in respect of a Bombay High Court order on the scheme under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Offensive Advertisements) Act 1954.

On April 2, the Bench had directed both Ramdev and Balakrishna to remain present on the next date. The Bench also gave them a last chance to file their affidavits in the case within a week. It is to be noted that the Court had on March 19 directed Ramdev and Balakrishna to appear before the Court for the first time for failing to respond to the show-cause notice issued to them in contempt proceedings.

On February 27, the Court had severely criticized the Patanjali Ayurveda conglomerate for persistently spreading allegedly misleading claims and advertisements targeting modern medical systems and restrained it from advertising or branding some of the conglomerate’s manufactured and marketed products intended to address the ailments. /diseases/conditions mentioned in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertising) Act 1954 and the Rules.

The Court had also expressed dissatisfaction over the continued promotion of such misleading information by Patanjali Ayurved despite giving an assurance in November 2023. On the earlier occasion, the Court had verbally told senior advocate PS Patwalia that it is focusing on the case and on each individual. Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya had then requested that the part of the order where the Court says that the matter is limited to Patanjali, be corrected to say that the matter is not limited to Patanjali. Justice Amanullah said Patanjali’s case will be used as a test case, something to start with at this point and the exercise will not be limited to Patanjali.

Also, the Bench had earlier expressed its reluctance to turn the issue into a debate on “Allopathy versus Ayurveda”.

Title of Cause: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India (WP(C) No. 645/2022)