Rama Krishna Sangem
Finally, Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna tendered apologies before the Supreme Court in a case related to misleading advertisements of his company’s herbal products. The SC on April 2, Tuesday rebuked Patanjali Ayurved, led by Ramdev, for disregarding its directives in the misleading advertisements case. The court instructed the company to treat the contempt petition against it with gravity.
Both Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved’s managing director Acharya Balkrishna appeared in person, as directed by the Supreme Court. The company tendered an ‘unconditional apology’ for breaching the court’s order.
“Take this contempt seriously. We are getting the impression that you are representing somebody who is in the teeth of an undertaking given to this court. For you to go like a shot and give a press conference in 24 hours shows you knew about the proceedings and then you violated them,” the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, told senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramdev.
The Supreme Court further stated that it was considering pursuing the contempt petition against Patanjali to its ‘logical conclusion’. “We usually do not follow through on contempt cases, and it is about making one realise the majesty of the law, but there are exceptions, and perhaps you are falling under that exception,” said the bench.
SC unhappy with Ramdev
The Supreme Court further slammed the company for persisting in publishing advertisements despite prior warnings. Patanjali, on the other hand, claimed that its media department was unaware of the order. Although Patanjali apologised for the oversight, the apex court dismissed it as mere ‘lip service’.
“Being the co-founder of the organisation, we refuse to believe that the company was not aware. You holding the press conference within 24 hours shows that you were cognisant,” SC’s Justice Kohli said.
“Not just the Supreme Court; every order passed by courts across the country has to be respected,” said Justice Kohli, adding, “[This is] absolute defiance. We are not convinced by the apology. We need to take contempt cases to a logical conclusion.”
Patanjali Ayurved was directed to submit two affidavits for separate instances of contempt. The first affidavit addressed why the company persisted in disseminating misleading advertisements despite committing not to do so in court. The second affidavit concerned its failure to respond to the contempt notice issued to Balakrishna and the company.
