In November 2023, the matter was listed before a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra. The petitioner highlighted the smear campaign of Patanjali against modern medicine systems. The top court noted that it did not wish to reduce the matter to Allopathy versus Ayurveda, however, it did find merit in the petitioner's claim regarding false and misleading advertisements. Asking Patanjali to desist from making any false claims, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted, ‘The Court will take any such infraction very seriously, and the Court will also consider imposing costs to the extent of Rs. 1 crore on every product regarding which a false claim is made that it can “cure” a particular disease.”

Noting the gravity of the situation the additional solicitor general KM Nataraj sought time to get clear instructions from the different authorities regarding the misleading and false claims and the measures to prevent the same. Additionally, Patanjali Ayurved Limited through their counsel gave an oral assurance that they would not violate any law and not make even casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form. This was noted in the order as well.

However, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna held a press conference on the very next day of the Supreme Court order, wherein they violated the undertaking.

Furthermore, on December 4, 2023, a print advertisement making false and misleading claims was published in the Hindu newspaper. The advertisements claimed that Patanjali products could provide permanent cures for Glaucoma, Diabetes, High blood pressure, asthma, arthritis, etc. On January 15, 2024, the Supreme Court also received an anonymous letter containing advertisements and false claims made by Patanjali Ayurved despite their undertaking before the highest court to stop.

On February 27, 2024, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah opined that Patanjali Ayurved Limited had violated the undertaking given by it and recorded by the court on November 21, 2023, and issued a notice asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.

The Supreme Court was inclined to place a complete ban on all advertisements but was persuaded by Sr. Adv. Vipin Sanghi, representing Patanjali stated that the enterprise also produced household items like toothpaste, thus a complete ban would be excessive. The court banned Patanjali, “from advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it which are meant to cure the diseases/disorders/conditions specified in the 1954 Act and 1955 Rules”. The Court also pulled up the Central Government for failing to take any action despite such a clear violation and listed the matter for March 19, 2024.

On March 19, no reply had been furnished by Acharya Balkrishna and the court found the affidavit of the Central government to be inadequate. The bench permitted them a last opportunity to withdraw the affidavit and file a detailed affidavit. It also noted that Baba Ramdev had violated the prior order of November 2023, and issued a show cause notice against him and directed both Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to be present in person before the Court on the next date i.e. April 2, 2024.

After this order, Acharya Balkrishna filed an affidavit the very next day tendering an unqualified apology. He stated that the advertisements were meant to contain only general statements and inadvertently included the offending sentences. He stated that the media personnel were not cognisant of the November 2023 order and had inadvertently released the advertisement. He also questioned the Drugs and Magical Remedies Act as archaic as the contemporary scientific standards of research to test Ayurveda products were not available in 1954.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court found the apology of Patanjali Ayurved Limited’s Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna to be “perfunctory and inadequate”’ It also pulled up Baba Ramdev for not filing a reply despite ample time and opportunity. The Court was angered by the attempt of Baba Ramdev to feign ignorance about the order and noted that he was very aware of the order while criticising it in a press conference on November 22, 2023. The court also did not appreciate Balakrishna's reason for the advertising team being unaware of the order. Noting the false oral statement, the court threatened to take action for perjury.

The court also came down heavily on Patanjali’s claim that the 1954 Act was archaic. It noted that the law of the land needs to be followed irrespective of when it was passed.

The SC also came down heavily against the Union government for taking no action, and questioned its lack of action, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic when despite the government committee giving a conclusive finding that the products of Baba Ramdev were not a cure for the viral disease, no action was taken against them.

The Centre tried to reason by saying that a warning had been issued. This was found to be inadequate especially when the 1954 legislation provided clear penalties including imprisonment. The SC also noted that it had not stayed any proceedings and relevant authorities should have taken action for the violation.

As a last opportunity, the SC has given time to all parties to file their affidavits and replies and the matter will now be heard on April 10. The proceedings on this date will determine the future of Patanjali Ayurved and Baba Ramdev.

Parijata Bharadwaj, a lawyer and researcher based in New Delhi, co-founded the Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group that offered legal services to adivasis in Chhattisgarh. The views expressed are personal.