Patanjali ad case | Is your apology as big and expensive as a front page ad? SC asks Patanjali, Ramdev

On April 23, the Supreme Court ruled against Patanjali Ayurved, a company co-founded by self-proclaimed yoga guru Baba Ramdev, that the company’s apology published in a newspaper was a “front-page advertisement” for an ordinary herbal medicine. I asked if it was as large and expensive as the

Patanjali, Ramdev and his colleague Acharya Balkrishna are facing contempt charges from the Supreme Court for publishing offensive and misleading advertisements about Ayurvedic products.

They were also in breach of a promise they gave to the Supreme Court last November to block these ads. The court has so far been dissatisfied with the affidavits expressing regret for their actions.

At the previous hearing, the three suspects promised to take steps to make amends and expressed their intention to issue public apologies in the media.

67 newspapers

Three senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, said the apology was published in 67 newspapers. “Hundreds of thousands of dollars” were spent to express regret for misleading the public.

“But is your apology the same size as an ad you would normally run in a newspaper? Didn’t it cost ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ to run a full-page ad?” Justice Kohli asked Rohatgi. Ta.

Also Read | Dangerous Game: What Patanjali Ayurveda Claims

The court said it did not want to see an “enlarged” copy of the published apology.

“We want to see the newspaper in its original text. We want to know which page, where it was published, etc.,” Justice Amanullah told senior lawyers.

The court gave Rohatgi time until April 30 to submit original documents.

The court sought an explanation from the AYUSH Ministry over the sudden “omission” of Rule 170 from the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which provides powers to take action against objectionable advertisements.

The court said the government’s own expert body had recommended Rule 170, only for the Center to inexplicably remove it later.

“Your own Secretary of State assured Parliament of the need to protect consumers and initiate action against offensive advertising… You then decided to remove regulation 170. What weighed you down?” Justice Kohli asked the Center for an explanation.

In fact, the disarmament of Rule 170 was cited by Patanjali as an excuse to continue its propaganda. The company had determined that the remaining laws governing offensive advertising (the Narcotic Drugs and Magical Remedies Act 1954) were “outdated”.

The court further passed judgment against licensing authorities and drug control officers under the jurisdiction of AYUSH.

The court also did not spare the petitioner, the Indian Medical Association, which had filed a case in the Supreme Court against Patanjali.

A court has announced that it will investigate the phenomenon of inflated claims in which doctors allegedly prescribe expensive drug brands in collusion with pharmaceutical companies. A hearing on this part of the case was scheduled for May 7.