In a scathing rebuke, the Supreme Court of New Delhi admonished Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna for their language choices in their affidavits presented in court. The justices granted them one final chance to submit revised affidavits within seven days.
The highest court criticized Ramdev and Balakrishna, the Managing Director of Patanjali, for disregarding its instructions regarding the company’s deceptive advertisements. It questioned why both the central and state governments turned a blind eye to Patanjali’s misleading claims despite court rulings, accusing them of complicity.
During the proceedings, Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah chastised the legal representatives of Ramdev and Balkrishna, emphasizing accountability. They asserted that an apology should have been the initial response from the defendants, rather than legal arguments.
The bench underscored the seriousness of the contempt charges, stating that the defendants must address them sincerely. They criticized Patanjali’s counsel for their lack of contrition and emphasized the importance of genuine remorse.
Ramdev and Balkrishna were given a final opportunity to rectify their responses, with the case scheduled for further deliberation on April 10th. Ramdev offered an unconditional apology for the misleading advertisements, expressing regret for the company’s actions.
The court disapproved of Patanjali MD’s assertion that certain laws were outdated, asserting that no law should be disregarded on such grounds.
Ramdev’s lawyer expressed his clients’ readiness to apologize in person, acknowledging the court’s authority. Meanwhile, the bench rejected Patanjali’s superficial apology, emphasizing the severity of their defiance.
The Supreme Court demanded an explanation from the Uttarakhand government regarding its failure to take action against Ramdev and Patanjali for their deceptive advertising practices, indicating a lapse in governmental responsibility.
Last November, the Supreme Court cautioned Patanjali against making false and misleading claims about its products in response to a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association.
