In the judicial realm of New Delhi, the Supreme Court wielded its authority on Tuesday, castigating the Central government for its inertia in addressing the “deceptive and erroneous” advertisements propagated by Patanjali, claiming the cure of various ailments. Consequently, Patanjali finds itself restrained from disseminating advertisements asserting curative properties for the time being.
A bench, presided over by Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, directed its scrutiny towards Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj, who represented the Centre. In a pointed inquiry, Justice Kohli questioned the government’s actions against the advertised assertions related to diabetes, highlighting the state officers’ responsibility for enforcement.
The legal proceedings unfolded as a response to a plea by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), accusing Ramdev of orchestrating a smear campaign against modern medicine.
Justice Amanullah declared the intention to include Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishan, featured in the advertisements, as parties in the case. Patanjali’s legal representative, Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, argued that Baba Ramdev, being a sanyasi, should be exempt. The court, indifferent to Ramdev’s spiritual status, expressed awareness of prima facie violations of its orders.
Questioning the Centre’s actions, the bench sought evidence of the government’s recommendations to state authorities. Justice Amanullah rebuked the Centre, asserting that the entire nation was being misled and urged it to take decisive action. In response, Nataraj requested time to present a more comprehensive affidavit.
Justice Kohli suggested involving the states as parties if the Centre claimed its inability to act. Stressing the gravity of the situation, Justice Amanullah emphasized the need for continuous monitoring to prevent the publication of misleading advertisements.
Sanghi faced inquiries about Patanjali’s claims of permanent relief for various diseases, including obesity, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, blood pressure, and organ-related ailments. Justice Amanullah questioned the notion of “permanent relief” and differentiated between relief, cure, and the inevitable cessation of suffering through death.
Sanghi, defending the term “permanent relief,” provided an analogy related to blood pressure medication. The bench, unimpressed, emphasized the misleading nature of claims and insisted on a halt to such advertisements.
The court expressed concern over Patanjali’s misleading advertisements and prohibited causal statements regarding any medical system. It underscored that claims of permanent relief amounted to law violations. Sanghi, seeking time for a response, argued against a complete advertising ban.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing IMA, raised concerns about Ramdev’s press conference spreading falsehoods about allopathy. The bench inquired about the AYUSH Ministry’s stance, contemplating issuing notices to all states and union territories.
In response, Nataraj pledged a more comprehensive affidavit from the Centre, signaling the withdrawal of the earlier submission. Justice Amanullah insisted on a complete stop to Patanjali’s misleading advertising, while the court initiated contempt of court proceedings against Patanjali.
The apex court, scheduling further proceedings for March 19, reinforced its caution to Patanjali against false and misleading claims in advertising. The company, known for its herbal products, now faces legal repercussions for its controversial marketing practices.