• HOME»
  • India»
  • Misleading Ads case: Ramdev ready for ‘public apology’; next hearing on April 23

Misleading Ads case: Ramdev ready for ‘public apology’; next hearing on April 23

The Supreme Court has granted a week to Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd MD Balkrishna Acharya to rectify their alleged contempt, following their lawyers’ offer to issue a public apology for a case involving misleading advertisements. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Ramdev and Balkrishna, stated, “I am willing to give a public apology,” […]

Advertisement
Misleading Ads case: Ramdev ready for ‘public apology’; next hearing on April 23

The Supreme Court has granted a week to Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd MD Balkrishna Acharya to rectify their alleged contempt, following their lawyers’ offer to issue a public apology for a case involving misleading advertisements.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Ramdev and Balkrishna, stated, “I am willing to give a public apology,” to a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

The court requested Ramdev and Balkrishna, both present in court, to engage in a dialogue with the bench, emphasizing the importance of them feeling connected to the court.

During the ongoing hearing, the bench is currently in discussion with Ramdev.

Both Ramdev and Balkrishna have submitted “unconditional and unqualified apologies” to the apex court regarding advertisements by the firm that made exaggerated claims about the effectiveness of its products.

In separate affidavits filed before the court, they offered apologies for breaching the statement recorded in the apex court’s order dated November 21 of the previous year.

In that order, the court noted assurances from counsel representing Patanjali Ayurved that there would be no further violations of laws, particularly regarding advertising or branding, and no release of casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine.

The court reminded Patanjali Ayurved Ltd of its commitment to these assurances.

The failure to uphold these specific assurances and subsequent media statements displeased the apex court, which subsequently issued a notice to them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.

Advertisement