The Supreme Court of India has heavily criticised Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publicise deceptive advertisements promoting medicinal cures. Patanjali had committed to the Court in November the last year that such claims would stop.
Expressing initial concerns over the company's breach of its commitment, the Court issued a notice to Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director, Acharya Balakrishna, demanding justification for potential contempt of court.
In response to the ongoing issue, the Court prohibited Patanjali Ayurved from advertising or branding products purported to treat diseases specified under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.
Moreover, the company was cautioned against making derogatory remarks about any system of medicine. The Court scheduled a follow-up hearing in two weeks to address the matter further.
The Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association which sought to curb what the latter had described as a "smear campaign" and negative advertisements targeting the vaccination drive and modern medicines.
During the proceedings, the Court also sought information from the Union Government regarding any actions taken under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 in response to Patanjali's advertisements.
"The entire country is taken for a ride! You wait for two years when the Acts says this (misleading advertisements) is prohibited," Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj.
In response to the SC judges remarks, ASG KM Nataraj stated that it is for the concerned States to take action under the Act.
When the case was taken in the morning session, Justice Amanullah strongly rebuked Patanjali for yet another advertisement that contained misleading claims. Justice Amanullah, without mincing any words, said: “Today, I am going to pass really strict order. You flout this order!”
“You had the courage and guts to come up with this advertisement after the order of this Court! And then you come up with this advertisement. Permanent relief, what do you mean by permanent relief? Is it a cure?...we are going to pass a very, very strict order. You are tempting the Court.” Judge added.
During the 2 PM session, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing the Indian Medical Association, reported that the day following the Supreme Court's November 21, 2023 order, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna of Patanjali held a press conference and reiterated misleading claims.
Patwalia also highlighted that advertisements promoting permanent cures for ailments such as diabetes, blood pressure, asthma, arthritis, and glaucoma were circulated, referencing a publication in 'The Hindu' on December 4, 2023, and YouTube links to the press conference. He further said argued that many of these conditions are explicitly listed in the Schedule to the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
The bench then grilled Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing Patanjali Ayurved, questioning the company's claim of providing permanent relief. Additionally, the bench raised concerns about Patanjali Ayurved's statements regarding other medicinal systems like Allopathy, reminding Sanghi of the previous order restraining comments against alternative systems.
Justice Amanullah said that there was a prima facie flouting of the Supreme Court's order and notices should be issued to Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna whose pictures were shown in the advertisements.
Responding to queries about Baba Ramdev being a sanyasi, Sanghi's remark was dismissed by Justice Amanullah, stating the importance to follow court's directives over personal identities. Patwalia criticised Sanghi's statement as "outrageous," while Justice Kohli echoed concerns over the apparent disregard for the court's order.
Initially considering a complete ban on advertisements, the bench reconsidered upon Sanghi's argument highlighting the company's diverse product portfolio. Consequently, the Court specified that the ban would apply solely to products associated with diseases listed under the Act.