In the heart of New Delhi, the Supreme Court adopted a stern stance towards Patanjali on Tuesday, questioning the extent of sincerity in their published apology, likening it to the grandeur of full-page endorsements for their products. Adding a new layer to the proceedings, the apex court directed its attention to the Indian Medical Association (IMA), asserting that while they are accusing Patanjali Ayurved, the remaining four fingers point back at the association, whose members are engrossed in promoting medications to their clientele.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, in the presence of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, apprised the bench about the dissemination of an apology by Patanjali through various newspapers. The bench inquired whether the apology shared the same expanse as their advertisements. Responding, the counsel elaborated on the substantial costs involved, stating that the apology had been featured in 67 newspapers.
The bench requested the counsel to procure the actual newspaper clippings for examination. “We wish to assess the genuine scale of the advertisement. An apology, no matter how sincere, does not necessitate microscopic scrutiny,” remarked the bench.
Highlighting that the apology ought to have matched the magnitude of the company’s promotional material, the bench, while adjourning the hearing until April 30, instructed Patanjali’s legal representatives to furnish a copy of the advertised apology.
Expanding the scope of its directive, the apex court declared that it pertains to all Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) and pharmaceutical companies concerning false health assertions in their promotions. The court clarified that it was not targeting any specific entity or authority but was addressing an issue that impacts the broader public, particularly infants and school-goers.
The court further probed into why Rule 170, which prohibits advertisements without approval from state licensing authorities, had been suspended. Directing its attention to the Center, the bench emphasized the need to scrutinize the content of advertisements, bringing in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and drug licensing authorities from all states as parties to the case.
During the proceedings, the bench addressed senior advocate P S Patwalia, representing the IMA, stating, “While the petitioner (IMA) accuses the respondents, the four fingers of responsibility also point towards you. Your association’s members are actively endorsing medications to their patients, for undisclosed considerations… How are you managing this situation?”
Justice Kohli directed the query to Patwalia, stating, “Your members are prescribing medicines based on recommendations for which they receive valuable considerations… If this is indeed the case, why should we not redirect our focus towards you?” Patwalia assured the court that they would investigate the matter.
The apex court convened on a contempt charge against Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Swami Ramdev for disseminating deceptive medical advertisements, contravening an undertaking given to the apex court in November of the previous year.