SC settles contempt case with Ramdev and Patanjali; warns against further misleading ads

The Supreme Court concluded its contempt case against Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Managing Director (MD) Balkrishna on Aug 13, by accepting their unconditional apology and an undertaking.

This undertaking was a commitment from both Ramdev and Balkrishna to ensure that Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. would cease issuing misleading advertisements and making false claims about its products.

Ramdev and Balkrishna had previously issued multiple apologies in the Supreme Court and published similar apologies in various newspapers across the country.

The bench, consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, accepted these apologies but issued a strong warning. They said that the contempt case could be reopened if any of the terms of their undertaking were violated in the future.

In their apologies, the founders of Patanjali acknowledged the serious nature of their actions. They assured the court that the company would no longer participate in misleading advertising practices.

Furthermore, they committed to ensuring that all future advertisements and public statements would be carefully reviewed for accuracy and comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

The contempt proceedings were initiated after the Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a petition in 2022. The petition accused Ramdev and Balkrishna of making misleading claims regarding the effectiveness and benefits of their products.

Additionally, it alleged that Patanjali had launched a smear campaign against the COVID-19 vaccination effort and modern medicine practices.

"The court has closed the contempt proceedings based on the undertakings given by Ramdev, Balkrishna and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd," said Advocate Gautam Talukdar, who represented Ramdev and Balkrishna.

Earlier hearings related to the IMA’s petition had shown the Supreme Court's deep concern. The court had stressed the importance of responsible communication, particularly during a pandemic such as COVID-19.

The court had also criticized Patanjali for disseminating misinformation that could erode public trust in the healthcare system. In November 2023, the court had recorded an undertaking from Patanjali promising to cease all misleading advertisements and derogatory remarks about modern medicine.

However, the IMA returned to the court with evidence showing that Ramdev had held a press conference and Patanjali had released advertisements shortly after the November 2023 undertaking.

These advertisements falsely claimed that Patanjali products could cure various ailments, including hypertension and diabetes.

The court, aggravated by the breach of its orders, issued several directives on Feb 27, March 19, April 2, and April 10, requiring Ramdev and Balkrishna to personally appear and explain why they should not be punished for contempt.

Despite submitting additional apology affidavits, the court found these submissions unsatisfactory and bona fide.

On April 10, the bench expressed its displeasure with Ramdev and Balkrishna. The judges criticized their attempts to apologize, indicating that their approach was inadequate given the severity of their violations.

They conveyed their frustration with being "generous" after the duo's failure to adhere to previous court warnings.

The court also reproached the Uttarakhand government, accusing it of turning a blind eye to the company’s violations.

The court noted that the state authorities had not enforced regulations against Patanjali for making false claims about curing diseases such as diabetes and asthma.

On April 16, the court directly interacted with Ramdev and Balkrishna, informing them that their claims of innocence or inadvertence could not be accepted without further scrutiny. They were given a week to take corrective actions to demonstrate genuine remorse and compliance.

The court also criticized Uttarakhand officials for failing to enforce the relevant laws, including the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954, the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Rules of 1955, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules of 1945.