At one time, he was a phenomenon— a yoga teacher-turned-entrepreneur who built a massive empire on his Patanjali Ayurvedic drugs and potions and was feted by the rich and powerful. Now, the legal cases and strictures are piling up faster than he created his spiritual business
The Supreme Court on April 30 criticized the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (SLA) for its failure to take action against Patanjali Ayurved for years. A bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, stated that the SLA appears to have chosen to act against Patanjali’s misleading advertisements only after the top court passed strictures and made strong observations in that regard. Earlier on April 27, the SLA had filed an affidavit apologising for its earlier inaction and stated that it has filed a criminal complaint against Patanjali Ayurved and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
Earlier, the top court on April 23 sought explanation from the centre over its failure to invoke the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, against Patanjali Ayurved for broadcasting misleading advertisements. The bench mentioned that the AYUSH ministry of the centre had sent a letter to all the state governments in 2023 directing them not to take any action under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Court further pointed out that the minister of state had submitted in Parliament that the government had taken steps against such advertisements, but now the centre was saying that Rule 170 will not be given effect to. Asking if the government can put on hold the exercise of law when it is in power, Justice Amanullah stated that it is a “colourable” exercise of power and violation of law. Meanwhile, Justice Kohli remarked that it seems that the authorities were busy looking at the revenue. Subsequently, the Court ordered the centre to explain the letter to the Drugs Controller Authority, states, omitting Rule 170.
The top court further decided to take a closer look into implementation of laws, such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act. The Court clarified that this examination would not just be limited to having these laws enforced against Patanjali Ayurved, but would also concern its implementation against misleading advertisements for other fast moving consumer goods. Further, the Court expressed that it was concerned with such misleading advertisements taking the public for a ride and affecting the health of babies and children and the elderly, who have been consuming medicines after being influenced by the misleading advertisements. During the hearing, the apex court also asked Patanjali Ayurved if the public apology published by the company in newspapers on April 22 was as big as its advertisements.
On April 22, Patanjali Ayurved had published advertisements in certain newspapers expressing apology for the mistake of publishing advertisements and holding a press conference even after its counsel had made a statement in the apex court. Patanjali’s counsel assured the apex court that they
will issue a public apology for their mistake. Subsequently, Justice Kohli asked if the apology was of the same size as their advertisements. To this, the counsel said that the apology costs tens of lakhs of rupees and was published in 67 newspapers.
The Supreme Court had on April 19 granted two weeks time to Bihar and Chhattisgarh to inform it about the status regarding the FIRs and chargesheets filed against Baba Ramdev’s remarks on Allopathy. The Court observed that as the petition was filed in 2021 and the chargesheet would have been filed.
The apex court was hearing Ramdev’s plea to combine multiple FIRs filed against him in several states over his alleged remarks that Allopathy cannot cure Covid. The First Information Reports (FIR) against Ramdev were registered in Bihar and Chhattisgarh, based on complaints by the Indian Medical Association. Notably, the Patna and Raipur chapters of the Association had also filed complaints against Ramdev, alleging that his comments are likely to cause prejudice to Covid control, as the misinformation spread by him in a position of influence can dissuade people from availing proper treatment against the pandemic.
The Supreme Court in this petition had also asked Ramdev to produce the video and transcripts of his statements on the Allopathy cure for Covid. In the petition filed under Article 32, Ramdev sought clubbing and the consolidation of FIRs and their transfer to Delhi. He also sought a stay on the investigation in the FIRs as an interim relief. The FIRs mentioned offences under Sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and other provisions of Disaster Management Act 2005.
Additionally, Ramdev is also facing contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court for publishing misleading medical advertisements in breach of an undertaking given by Patanjali Ayurved to the top court. The Court had on April 10 come down heavily on the founders of Patanjali Ayurved, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna in a contempt case related to airing of misleading medical advertisements. The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had refused to accept the second affidavit filed by Balkrishna, in which he expressed unconditional and unqualified apology for airing the advertisements in breach of an undertaking given to the Court in November, last year. The apex court refused to accept the apology on the grounds that the affidavit was merely “on paper” and warned that the proposed contemnors should be ready to face penal action for violation of the undertaking.
During the course of the hearing, the top court commented that both the Patanjali’s managing director and Baba Ramdev tried to evade personal appearance before the Court by making false claims of travel abroad. After show-cause notices were issued to them, they attempted to “wriggle out” of their personal presence by moving applications seeking exemption on the ground that they were travelling abroad. To demonstrate the fact, affidavits were filed by them, referring to certain flight tickets, which were produced as annexures. The Court observed that though the applications were filed on March 30, the flight tickets produced as annexures were dated March 31. The concerned lawyer was confronted with this fact during the earlier hearing.
In the latest affidavits, Balkrishna and Ramdev admitted that the tickets were issued a day after the affidavits were sworn and explained that at the time of filing of the affidavit, the photocopies of the tickets were annexed. The Court also came down heavily on the Uttarakhand government for its failure to take legal action against Patanjali and its subsidiary Divya Pharmacy. It asked why it should not think that the Uttarakhand authorities were “hands-in-glove” with Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy. The bench further remarked that it was “appalled” to note that apart from “pushing” the file, the SLA did nothing and were merely trying to “pass” on the buck to somehow “delay” the matter.
It said the SLA was equally “complicit” due to its inaction against the Divya Pharmacy despite having information about their advertisements violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act. The Bench said it was refraining from issuing contempt notices to other officers and directed all officers holding the post of joint director of the SLA, Haridwar, between 2018 till date, to file affidavits explaining inaction on their part.
Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology before the Supreme Court over the company’s misleading advertisements and claims targeting evidence-based medicine. Ramdev and Balkrishna filed separate affidavits before the apex court on April 6, seeking pardon for the breach of their earlier statement that they would not telecast or publish such misleading advertisements. They further assured to always uphold the majesty of the law and justice.
Ramdev further apologised for his November 2023 press conference, wherein he had spoken about the case after the Court had passed strictures against Patanjali Ayurved. He assured the top court that he would comply with its directives “in letter and spirit”. The development followed the April 2 order of the Supreme Court, reprimanding Patanjali Ayurved over its earlier apology affidavit, which was dubbed as casual and a mere lip service. The concerned bench sought apology from the Patanjali founders for their failure to stop carrying misleading advertisements to promote their Ayurvedic products by disparaging modern medicine. The bench passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association against an alleged smear campaign carried out by Patanjali and its founder against the Covid-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.
The apex court had earlier imposed a temporary ban on such advertisements and issued contempt of court notices to the company and Balkrishna for making misleading claims. In November 2023, the Supreme Court had threatened to impose costs of Rs 1 crore per false claim made in each advertisement for Patanjali Ayurved products that claimed to cure diseases. Patanjali was directed not to publish false advertisements in the future. However, since such advertisements were published despite the warning, the apex court imposed a temporary ban on Patanjali Ayurved’s advertisements, while lamenting that the company had been taking the country for a ride. On March 19, the apex court had directed Ramdev and Balkrishna to be personally present before it after the latter failed to file a reply to the show-cause notice in the contempt proceedings.
Ramdev now has to swallow some strong legal medicine himself.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau