After reading an affidavit submitted by Balkrishna, took exception to it shifting the blame to the company’s media department.......
Digital desk: The Supreme Court stated on Tuesday that it was not inclined to accept the apology tendered by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, the managing director of Patanjali Ayurved, had submitted in response to notices requesting them to explain why they should not be held in contempt of court for allegedly disobeying its orders. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court granted them one final chance to submit new answers.
The corporation had told the court on November 21, 2023, that it would not make any “casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine.” The court was upset by a commercial the company released on December 4, 2023.
Following Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's intervention, a bench consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah—who had been drawn into the case—finally decided to give it another shot.
After reading an affidavit submitted by Balkrishna, took exception to it shifting the blame to the company’s media department. Justice Kohli said, "We are not willing to accept such an explanation… Your media department is not a standalone island in your office is it…that it wouldn’t know what is happening in the court proceedings? And proceedings of such a serious nature. So your apology is not persuading this court really to accept it. We think it’s more of a lip service."
On March 19, the bench requested to see Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev in person after receiving a plea from the Indian Medical Association (IMA) accusing the company of allegedly breaking the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and making statements critical of allopathy. The two had made an appearance in court on Tuesday.
In the affidavit filed in response to the notice, Acharya Balkrishna said he “regrets that the advertisement in question which was meant to contain only general statements inadvertently included the offending sentences… The same was bona-fide and added in routine course by the media department of the…Company,” he said, adding “the personnel of the media department of the…Company were not cognizant of the order dated 21.11.2023.”
Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi defending Balkrishna and the company, accepted that there was a mistake, but it did not convince the court. The Supreme Court pointed out, "But what did you do in November? What engages us is what you did and how you conducted yourself after you give an undertaking to this court in November. The whole thing follows from then — lapse by you, lapse by your company, and lapse by the third proposed contemnor (Baba Ramdev) who is the co-founder and promoter of the same brand. Conducting press conference the next day. You were all cognizant of the court proceedings. You can’t feign ignorance."
Balkrishna had further stated in the affidavit that the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act was passed at a time when Ayurvedic research lacked scientific backing.
Justice Kohli also took exception to this and said, “Even today, one of the statements made by you in your so-called unqualified apology is that the Act itself is archaic. So shall we assume that every Act which is archaic shall not be implemented or enforced in law? An Act remains an enactment, which has to be enforced as a law of the land till it remains on the statute book”.
As Sanghi agreed, Justice Kohli added, “For you to then say that there is scientific research and and therefore… When there is an Act that governs the field, how can you violate it with such impunity? That all your advertisements are in the teeth of that Act. And to top it all and that’s adding insult to injury, that you had given an undertaking to this court, a solemn undertaking, and you violate it with impunity!”
Sanghi replied, “There has been a lapse.”
Justice Kohli further stated, "Therefore, be ready for the follow-up consequences is all we are saying. We are not willing to look at this apology which is perfunctory in every respect." In its reply, Sanghi said the company’s motive was not commercial benefit, but Justice Kohli again referred that “you are a commercial organization”.
Justice Amanullah added that such comments are for public consumption. Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, who represented Ramdev, also expressed unconditionally and stated that the response affidavit was prepared but not filed because he felt he should personally apologize to the court before responding. But according to Justice Amanullah, said the apology "is not coming from the heart."
Leave A Comment