SC refuses to accept IMA president's Apology, Reserves verdict on Patanjali Misleading Ads case
New Delhi: While considering the misleading ads case against Patanjali, the Supreme Court recently dismissed the apology tendered by the president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), for his remarks on the top court's ruling.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court bench had slammed the IMA Chief for targeting the apex court in a recent interview with PTI about Patanjali Ayurved's misleading advertisements case. Although Dr. Asokan expressed his unequivocal apologies by making his personal appearance, the bench was not pleased with his actions and dismissed the apology.
Meanwhile, during the hearing of the matter on Tuesday, the Apex Court bench Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah reserved its verdict on the pending contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ltd., its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev, who were accused of publishing misleading medical advertisements in breach of a court undertaking.
IMA had filed the plea against Patanjali's "smear campaign" and negative advertisements attacking modern medicines and especially the vaccination drive during the pandemic. Even though last year in November, Patanjali had assured the top court bench that no such statements would be made, the practice continued.
Also Read: Supreme Court slams IMA President
Supreme Court Dismisses Apology by IMA Chief:
During the case proceedings, the Patanjali lawyers brought to the Court's notice that the president of the Indian Medical Association- the petitioner in the contempt plea- gave a media interview criticizing the Court's observations regarding the need for IMA to take action on complaints of unethical practices by allopathic doctors as "vague" and "unfortunate". Consequently, the Court had allowed the Patanjali lawyers to bring the interview in question on record.
Recently, Patanjali filed a contempt plea against IMA. While issuing notice and seeking response from the Medical Association, the Apex Court bench had also condemned the interview given by the IMA President and impleaded him as a co-respondent.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court bench slammed the IMA Chief R V Asokan for targeting the apex court in a recent interview with PTI about Patanjali Ayurved's misleading advertisements case. The court termed the statements as "very, very unacceptable".
In response to the notice issued on Patanjali Ayurved's plea, IMA President Dr. Asokan was personally present before the Court and he expressed his unequivocal apologies to the top court bench. However, the bench was not pleased with his actions and dismissed the apology issued by him.
Bar and Bench reports that unconvinced by the apology affidavit submitted by the IMA president, a Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed, "Dr. Asokan, you are also a citizen of this country. The amount of criticism judges face, why don't they react? Because personally we don't have much of an ego, we are magnanimous. We are entitled to take action, but very rarely we do."
"We do that seldom...We use our discretion with some sense of responsibility. But that does not mean you go to town with these kind of comments! What would you have done if other side made these kind of comments? You would have come running to this Court!" the top court bench further noted.
Addressing the IMA President, who was present before the Court on Tuesday, the Apex Court bench noted, "We would have expected more sense of responsibility from you."
Referring to the interview, the bench observed, "You can't vent your feelings against the Court in the press like this. What made you go suddenly like this?"
Even though Dr. Asokan apologized unconditionally for his comments, the Court was unhappy with Dr. Asokan's affidavit. It noted, "Whether we should accept your statements after such damaging statements? You are the one who dragged the other side to the Court saying they are denigrating you, but when you are put to test..."
Further, the bench questioned the IMA Chief for not issuing a public apology before he appeared before the Court. It questioned the IMA Chief, "Why you did not give a public apology? Everything was written in black and white, why did you not make amends if you truly wanted to apologise? You could have gone to the same agency (PTI) and said what you are saying on affidavit now...What did you do to redeem yourself after the interview? Tell us."
While the Court contemplated taking judicial notice of the issue in order to send a message, Justice Kohli noted, "We are the first one to uphold the freedom of free speech. But there are times when there should be self-restraint. As IMA President, you should have had self-restraint. We didn't see that in your interviews."
"You can't sit on a couch giving an interview to the press and lampooning the court," Justice Kohli observed, adding that Dr. Asokan's actions would have to be addressed in the same manner as Patanjali's, reports Business Today.
The bench further noted, "We have the same to say for your apology, as we did for Patanjali. It's a subjudice matter in which you were party. Your counsel could have asked for expunging remarks. But you went to press. We are not at all happy. We can't condone so easy."
Expressing their disinterest to IMA's counsel, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, the Supreme Court bench said, "Mr Patwalia, we are not at this stage inclined to accept the apology tendered by your client."
Recently, the Supreme Court strongly objected to the petitioner association i.e. IMA for alleged unethical acts where medicines are prescribed, which are "expensive and unnecessary".
Issuing caution to the petitioner medical association about the complaints of unethical practices by allopathic doctors, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had observed, "The petitioner (IMA) needs to put its own house in order regarding alleged unethical acts of the organisation where medicines are prescribed, which is expensive and unnecessary."
Supreme Court Reserves Verdict:
Meanwhile, the top court bench on May 14 also reserved its verdict on the contempt plea by IMA against Patanjali Ltd, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev. The Apex Court bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah reserved the verdict after taking note of the submission by the counsel for Patanjali Senior Advocate Balbir Singh.
Advocate Singh informed the bench that complying with the Court's order, the original copies of apology notices have been filed and steps were underway regarding ads of those Patanjali products, the licenses for which were recently suspended by the State authorities.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that recently Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) issued an order dated April 15, 2024 to Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. cancelling 14 of their products with immediate effect under Rule 159(1) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for repeated violations under the said Acts and Rules. The State authorities also filed a criminal complaint against Yoga Guru Ramdev, his aide Balkrishna, Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd under sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
The 14 products which have been suspended with immediate effect include Swasari Gold, Swasari Vati, Bronchom, Swasari Pravahi, Swasari Avaleh, Mukta Vati Extra Power, Lipidom, Bp Grit, Madhugrit, Madhunashini Vati Extra Power, Livamrit Advance, Livogrit, Eyegrit Gold, Patanjali Drishti Eye Drop.
Earlier, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanyddin Amanullah came down heavily on the SLA for its "inaction" for six years in the matter, saying it had to be honest with the court if it wanted "sympathy and compassion".
During the hearing on Tuesday, noting the submissions Senior Advocate Balbir Singh for Patanjali, the Supreme Court bench pointed out that there were stocks already in circulation when licenses for 14 Patanjali products were suspended.
As per the latest media report by Live Law, the bench directed Patanjali to file an affidavit within 3 weeks, indicating steps being taken to recall ads of Patanjali products of which licenses have been suspended and also for recalling medicines wherever they have been sent for sale to stockists and other agencies.
Considering the request by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, the Court recorded the submission of Patanjali that the concerned affidavit would be without prejudice to its right of assailing the suspension order regarding the manufacturing licenses, before the appropriate forum. Meanwhile, the Apex Court bench also dispensed with the personal appearance of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.
On April 16, Ramdev and Balkrishna apologised to the Supreme Court for publishing misleading advertisements and making comments against allopathic medicines and Ramdev assured that he would "remain conscious about it in the future".
Also Read: Is your Apology the same size as your advertisement? SC slams Baba Ramdev
The apex court had warned Ramdev and Balkrishna against any attempt to "degrade allopathy" and permitted them to tender a "public apology and show contrition" within a week in the contempt proceedings in the misleading advertisements case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.
Earlier, on two occasions, they tendered unconditional and unqualified apology concerning the issue of advertisement. However, the bench refused to accept their affidavits, tendering apologies, and slammed them for the misleading advertisements carried out by them and the company. The apex court also slammed the Uttarakhand government for being "hand-in-glove" with errant licencing officers who failed to take action against Patanjali for publishing misleading advertisements.
The top court had earlier also directed Patanjali not to publish false advertisements in the future and later issued contempt of court notices to the company, Ramdev and Balkrishna.
Live Law has reported that on April 30, the Supreme Court bench expressed its satisfaction with the latest apology tendered by Patanjali. However, it lamented that the original copies had not been filed as directed.
Giving time to the counsel for Patanjali to bring on record the first pages of each newspaper in which the apology had been published, the bench had noted, "There has been a marked improvement from the last...two things, (earlier) it was small and there was only Patanjali...no names...now names have come. Language is adequate. It is a marked improvement. We appreciate that."
Further, the bench also conveyed its displeasure regarding the continuation of misleading ads on the internet, websites, and various channels, despite licenses to the relevant products having been suspended.
Also Read: Patanjali Ayurved to take legal action against Uttarakhand SLA
