'Doesn't Mean We've To Use Microscope...': SC Chides Baba Ramdev For Patanjali Apology Ad's Size

The apex court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Tuesday again talked tough to Patanjali, asking the company whether the size of its apology put out in newspapers was similar to full-page advertisements for its products. Also, in a new twist in the hearing, the apex court told the Indian Medical Association (IMA) that while they are pointing fingers at Patanjali Ayurved the other four fingers are pointing at the association, as members of the IMA are busy endorsing medicines to their patients.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi informed a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah about the publication of an apology by Patanjali in newspapers. The bench asked, is the apology the same size as your advertisements? The counsel replied that it costs tens of lakhs and added that the apology was published in 67 newspapers.

The bench asked the counsel to cut the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. “We want to see the actual size of the ad. When you issue an apology, it does not mean that we have to see it with a microscope…”, said the bench.

The bench said the apology should have been as big as the company’s advertisement and, while adjourning the hearing till April 30, asked Patanjali's lawyers to submit a copy of the apology advertisement.

The apex court widened the ambit of its order saying that it applies to all FMCGs/drug companies, in relation to misleading health claims made by companies, and it is not gunning for a particular company or authority. The apex court observed that the issue affected the general public, especially babies and school-going children.

It further queried, why Rule 170, which prohibited advertisements without the state licensing authority’s approval, was put on hold. The bench told the Centre that it should be concerned about the content of the advertisement and impleaded Information & Broadcast Ministry, Consumer Affairs Ministry, and drug licensing authorities of all states, as parties in the matter.

During the hearing, the bench told senior advocate P S Patwalia, representing the IMA, “While the petitioner (IMA) is pointing fingers at the respondents, those other four fingers are also pointing at you. Because members of your association have been busy endorsing medicines to their patients left, right, and centre, for considerations which are…what are you doing to reign those members in?”

Justice Kohli told Patwalia, “Your members are prescribing medicines on the strength of recommendations made for which there is valuable consideration….if that is happening then why should we not turn the beam at you?” Patwalia said we will look into this.

The apex court was hearing a contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Swami Ramdev for publishing misleading medical advertisements in violation of an undertaking given to the apex court in November last year.

Read More