The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accept the affidavit submitted by yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurveda managing director Balkrishna seeking unconditional apology for publishing a “misleading” advertisement. The Court stressed that this apology was only sought after being “caught on the wrong foot”. Expressing dissatisfaction over the inaction of the state licensing authority on the matter, Justice Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah issued a stern rebuke and warned of serious consequences. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, apologized on behalf of both and said that he is ready to give a public apology. After this, the court scheduled the next hearing for April 16 and directed Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to appear in person.
The court said that Ramdev and Balkrishna tried to avoid personal appearance despite receiving show-cause notices and instructions to appear in person. This attempt to “get away” of the situation was considered “most unacceptable” by the Court, which expressed objection to accepting his latest affidavit considering his past conduct.
The court rapped the State Licensing Authority, criticised its inaction in the last four-five years and sought an explanation for its negligence. Despite apologies by Ramdev and Balakrishna, the court refused to accept them, saying they were only on paper and did not reflect genuine remorse. The Court considered his actions to be a deliberate violation of its orders and undertakings.
Ramdev and Balakrishna had earlier tendered an unconditional apology for the claims made in advertisements about the effectiveness of Patanjali Ayurveda’s products. However, the Court rejected these apologies, emphasizing that the company had previously assured the Court of compliance with laws and refraining from making statements regarding medicinal efficacy.
The court’s rebuke stems from Patanjali Ayurveda’s Covid vaccination drive and alleged defamation campaign against modern medical systems. Despite previous warnings, the Court found that the company’s actions continued to violate its undertakings.
