Patanjali MD submits unqualified apology to Supreme Court over misleading advertisements
This development follows a directive from the Supreme Court on March 19 in a contempt case related to the publication of these advertisements.
This development follows a directive from the Supreme Court on March 19 in a contempt case related to the publication of these advertisements.
This development follows a directive from the Supreme Court on March 19 in a contempt case related to the publication of these advertisements.
The Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, Acharya Balakrishna, has issued an unqualified apology before the Supreme Court for publishing advertisements promoting medicinal cures, in violation of a previous undertaking given to the Court.
This development follows a directive from the Supreme Court on March 19, ordering the personal appearance of Patanjali's Managing Director, Acharya Balakrishna, and Baba Ramdev, the company's co-founder, in a contempt case related to the publication of these advertisements.
Earlier, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had issued a contempt notice to Patanjali Ayurved and its MD for persisting in publishing advertisements despite assurances made by Patanjali's counsel to refrain from such actions.
In an affidavit submitted to the Court, Balakrishna explained that the controversial advertisement was intended to contain only general statements but inadvertently included offending sentences. He clarified that the media personnel responsible for the ad were not aware of the undertaking given to the Court on November 21, 2023.
Moreover, Balakrishna assured the Court that such advertisements would not be issued in the future. He emphasized that Patanjali's intention is solely to encourage citizens to lead healthier lives by consuming the company's products, which are supported by ancient literature and Ayurvedic research.
In an order passed on February 27, the Court had directed Patanjali Ayurved to refrain from advertising or branding products meant to address diseases/disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954. The Court cautioned against making statements adverse to any system of medicine.
However, in the affidavit, Balakrishna criticized the Act as "archaic," stating that it was enacted at a time when scientific evidence regarding Ayurvedic medicines was lacking. He highlighted that the company now possesses evidence-based scientific data and clinical research conducted in Ayurveda, which demonstrates advancements in addressing diseases mentioned in the Act's schedule.
The Court is scheduled to consider the case on April 2.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)