SC issues contempt notices to Ramdev, Balkrishna over misleading Patanjali ads

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued contempt notices to Patanjali managing director Acharya Balkrishna and yoga guru Baba Ramdev over misleading advertisements while directing their presence before the court after two weeks.

A bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed displeasure over non-compliance with its earlier order on February 27. It sought a response from Patanjali and Balkrishna over misleading advertisements issued despite an undertaking in November last year. Ramdev’s photograph in the advertisements prompted the court to add him as a party to the proceedings.

The court issued the notices asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. “The proposed contemnor – managing director Acharya Balkrishna shall be present in court along with proposed contemnor Acharya Ramdev on the next date.”

The court cited the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, and provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectional Advertisements) Act, 1954. Section 3 of the Act prohibits advertisements claiming diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any lifestyle diseases such as blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, cervical spondylitis, obesity, or heart diseases.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Patanjali, told the court that Ramdev had nothing to do with Patanjali. He added before show causing him, the court ought to allow him to be heard.

The bench said the provisions of the 1954 Act concern all. “On the last occasion too, there was material where it was alleged that Baba Ramdev called a press conference after our order was passed. We have only issued a show-cause notice. Let him respond.”

The Indian Medical Association approached the court against Patanjali for making false and misleading claims of curing diseases and decrying modern medicine.

On February 27, the court restrained Patanjali from issuing any misleading advertisements on the medical efficacy of its products or against any other system of medicine. It sought a response from Patanjali and Balkrishna as well as the Union government to the alleged misleading advertisements.

The court also pulled up the government as its affidavit filed late on Monday evening was not on record. It could not find a copy of the government’s response and directed it to be placed on record before the next date. The court warned the government if the response is unsatisfactory, it will pass necessary orders.