The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted one week time to Baba Ramdev, his aide Balkrishna and Patanjali Ayurveda to issue a public apology in the misleading advertisement case.
Yoga guru Ramdev personally appeared before the apex court and expressed unconditional apology for publishing misleading advertisements and making comments against Allopathic medicines in breach of an undertaking given to the court.
Patanjali Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna also personally apologised to the court. Appearing for Patanjali, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi informed the court that they are ready to give a public apology to show contrition.
The bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurvedi Ltd, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev in the case over misleading ads. While personally interacting with Ramdev and Balkrishna, the bench asked why they acted in violation of the undertaking of the court.
To this, Baba Ramdev replied that they should not have done, and that they will remember this in future. He added that the contempt happened on an impulse and won’t happen in future again. Balkrishna too told the court that they should not have done it.
However, the bench observed that the law is equal for everyone and one cannot advertise about incurable diseases. Responding, Baba Ramdev said that they have conducted many tests. Remarking the advertisements to be irresponsible behaviour, the bench said they will think whether to accept the apology or not. It added that the accused have made repeated violations and the apology is not coming from heart.
Consecutively, the bench adjourned the hearing till April 23 to give opportunity to them to redeem their acts. Earlier on April 2, the apex court had refused to accept the first affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali MD, after noting that it was not unqualified. Later on April 10, the court refused to accept the second affidavit of apology filed by Patanjali MD. The top court also noted that Balkrishna and Ramdev had sworn an affidavit with non-existing flight tickets to evade personal appearance before the Court.