Rejecting another set of apologies filed by Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna for the company’s misleading ads, the Supreme Court today said “we are not blind” and that “it does not want to be generous” in this case. The court tore into the Uttarakhand licensing authority for not acting against Patanjali for so long, and also noted that it is not satisfied with the Centre’s reply in the matter.
“The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking,” the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah said.
At the beginning of the proceedings, the bench noted that Ramdev and Balkrishna sent their apologies to the media first. “Till the matter hit the court, the contemnors did not find it fit to send us the affidavits. They sent it to the media first, till 7.30 pm yesterday it was not uploaded for us. They believe in publicity clearly,” Justice Kohli said.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Patanjali founders, clarified that he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the registry and confirmed that the apologies have been duly submitted.
While presenting the affidavits, Justice Amanullah expressed skepticism, stating, “You are deceiving the affidavit. I am surprised by who drafted it.” Mr. Rohatgi acknowledged a “lapse”, prompting the court to remark, “a very modest term.”
Justice Amanullah questioned the sincerity of the apology, asking if it was “genuine”. Mr. Rohatgi responded, “We will express whatever is necessary, your honors. He is not a professional litigant. Mistakes happen in life.” The court emphasized that merely apologizing is insufficient. Consequences must be faced for disregarding the court’s directives. “We do not intend to be lenient in this matter,” the court asserted.
The court stressed the importance of sending a message to society. “This is not just about one FMCG company but about violating the law. Consider your responses to the state authority when they requested withdrawal. You cited the HC’s directive against taking coercive action. We are incorporating this into your behavior. The broader issue is your interaction with the public, despite claiming it was done in good faith.”
The court then directed its attention to the Uttarakhand government and inquired about the inaction of licensing inspectors, demanding the immediate suspension of three officers. The court criticized the state’s officers for their lack of action, expressing strong disapproval of the term ‘bonafide’ being used for them. The court warned that it would not take this matter lightly and threatened severe consequences, stating that the officers were merely “pushing files”.
“In 2021, the ministry raised concerns with the Uttarakhand licensing authority regarding a misleading advertisement. Despite the company responding to the authority, they were let off with just a warning. The court pointed out that the 1954 Act does not allow for warnings and does not provide for compounding the offense,” the court highlighted.
“This has occurred repeatedly, with no action taken by the licensing inspector. There is no report from the officer, and the subsequent appointee followed the same pattern. All three officers must be suspended immediately,” the court insisted, accusing the licensing authority of being “in cahoots with the contemnors”.
The bench said that the Supreme Court is being mocked. “You are acting like a post office. Did you take legal advice? Shameful of you,” it told the state counsel. “Why don’t we agree that you are hand-in-glove with Patanjali,” the court asked the authority, adding, “you have being playing with people’s life”.
When the Uttarakhand counsel told the court that they will take action, Justice Kohli remarked, “Thank God, now you have woken up at last and realise that there is a statute existing.”
“What about all the faceless people who have consumed these Patanjali medicines stated to cure diseases which cannot be cured. Can you do this to an ordinary person?” the court said. The licensing authority apologised to the court and assured that they will surely act in the matter.
The Supreme Court then said Ramdev and Balkrishna tried to wriggle out of physical appearance in court and said they were travelling abroad.
The state licensing authority, it noted, was in “deep slumber” and the “disdain” shown by Divya pharmacy to the warnings of state authority is “apparent from tone and tenor of the reply”.
All district ayurvedic and unani officers who have held posts from 2018 until now are required by the court to submit their responses regarding the actions they have taken against these advertisements. The court has announced that it will issue orders concerning Ramdev and Balkrishna on April 16th.