Patanjali case fallout: Supreme Court puts IMA, FMCG companies, celebrities, government ministries under scanner for misleading ads

It termed as “very, very unacceptable” the statements made by IMA President RV Asokan targeting the apex court in a recent interview where he answered questions about Patanjali Ayurved’s misleading advertisements case.

The case was the result of a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA. It alleged a smear campaign by Patanjali and yoga guru Ramdev against the Covid-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine systems.

It also pointed out that even though the licences of some of Patanjali’s products were suspended, its misleading advertisements are still available on the internet, websites, and various other platforms.

Related: Supreme Court hails ‘marked improvement’ in public apology by Patanjali

Displeasure over comments

Expressing displeasure over Asokan’s comments, the apex court sought his response to an application filed by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali, told the bench that it had filed an application urging the court to take judicial notice of the “wanton and unwarranted comments” made by the IMA president.

“This is a very serious issue. They are trying to divert the course of justice… Your lordships ask one or two queries and see how they are reacting as if nobody can ask anything,” said Rohatgi.

Rohatgi said at the last hearing, he had handed over to the court the transcript of the interview, which was published in newspapers.

“You can’t say you don’t know,” the bench told the IMA’s counsel.

Later during the hearing, when senior advocate PS Patwalia appeared for the IMA, the bench asked him about the comments made by Asokan.

When Patwalia said it was “rather not very fortunate”, the bench curtly told him, “You are very mild with your words.”

It added: “Your president gave an interview on the eve of the hearing. Why on the eve of the hearing?”

Patwalia said he was called for an interview by the Press Trust of India (PTI) on a host of issues. “Then what happened, according to me, it was a leading question and he fell into it,” he said.

“A doctor falling?” remarked Justice Amanullah testily.

Related: After Patanjali, FMCG companies on radar of Supreme Court

The comment that gave Patanjali a breather

In an interaction with PTI editors on 29 April for its programme @4 Parliament Street, the IMA president said it was “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court criticised the association and also some of the practices of private doctors.

Asokan was replying to a query about the Supreme Court’s observations during a hearing on 23 April when it said while it was pointing one finger at Patanjali, the remaining four fingers were pointed towards IMA.

The “vague and generalised statements”, he said, demoralised private doctors.

“We sincerely believe they need to look at what was the material before them. They perhaps did not consider that this was not the issue that was before them in the court,” added Asokan.

“You can say anything but still a majority of doctors are conscientious… practising according to ethics and principles. It does not behove the Supreme Court to take a broadside against the medical profession of the country which, after all, sacrificed so many lives for the Covid war,” he continued.

During the hearing on Tuesday, the apex court observed that the president of the IMA, which is a petitioner before it in the matter, went to the press and made statements in a matter that was sub-judice.

“You are the one coming to the court and saying that [those on] the other side are the ones misleading the public by advertisements, running your system of medicine down. What are you doing?” the bench said.

When Patwalia said the IMA president was actually “praising” the apex court’s order, the bench said, “We don’t want any pat on our back from anybody. We are only doing our job.”

Justice Kohli said: “This court is aware of the fact and you should be aware of it that it has broad enough shoulders to handle it all.”

Justice Amanullah added: “Very, very unacceptable.”

The bench told Patwalia that his reply had failed to convince the court.

Patwalia said the IMA president was “feeling sorry” about it and he had realised that he should have kept his mouth shut.

“We are not concerned about what you told him. We are concerned about what was pointed out by the other side on the last date and your inaction,” the bench said.

Patwalia requested the bench to give him time till next week to make amends.

The bench asked the IMA president to respond to Patanjali Ayurved’s application and posted the matter for further hearing on 14 May.

While hearing the matter on 30 April, the apex court had taken strong note of the comments by the IMA president and warned that there may be “serious consequences”.

The apex court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign against the Covid-19 vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine like allopathy.

Also Read: Licence of 14 Patanjali’s Divya Pharmacy products suspended

For celebrities and public figures

The Supreme Court on Tuesday also said that it was imperative for celebrities and public figures to act responsibly while endorsing consumer products.

The apex court mandated that advertisers must obtain a self-declaration before issuing an advertisement, following the guidelines of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.

Rule 7 of this law specifies an advertisement code that requires advertisements to adhere to the country’s laws.

In addition, the bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah directed the relevant Union ministries to provide information on misleading advertisements and the actions taken or proposed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

The bench observed, “Endorsements by celebrities, influencers, and public figures significantly contribute to product promotion. Therefore, it is crucial for them to endorse products responsibly in advertisements and assume accountability for their actions.”

Withdrawal of order

On 29 August, 2023, the Union Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) issued a letter to the licensing authorities and drug controllers of all state and union territories (UTs), instructing them not to initiate or take action under Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules of 1945.

This directive was based on a recommendation from the Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) to remove the provision.

However, the final notification for the omission of the rule was not published at that time.

On 7 May, the Central government informed the Supreme Court that it would promptly withdraw the aforementioned letter sent by the Ministry of AYUSH.

This decision was made in light of the contempt case against Patanjali concerning the dissemination of misleading advertisements.

The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed dissatisfaction with the ministry’s justification that the letter was issued based on a “recommendation” from ASUDTAB.

For context, Rule 170 prohibits the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani drugs without approval from licensing authorities.

Related: SC raps Patanjali’s ‘stamp-sized’ apology for smear campaign

‘Lack of action by licensing authority’

The Supreme Court on Tuesday also criticised the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for its lack of action in the case involving misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved Limited.

Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed dissatisfaction with the explanations provided by the authorities, suggesting that they appeared to have attempted to evade responsibility.

The bench expressed disappointment with the affidavits submitted by district officers from Haridwar, including Ayurveda and Unani officers, and permitted the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority to file additional affidavits.

However, the Centre defended its decision to issue a letter directing states’ and UTs’ licensing authorities not to take action against misleading advertisements related to Ayurvedic and AYUSH products under Rule 170.

The court highlighted that the authority only took action following the Supreme Court’s order on 10 April, indicating that its inactivity seemed deliberate.

“This demonstrates that when you’re motivated to act, you do so swiftly, but if not, years can pass without progress. In three days, you’ve taken decisive action,” remarked the bench.

“What were you doing in the nine months since assuming responsibility? Finally, you recognise your power and duties. You’ve awoken from your slumber,” it added.

The court instructed Patanjali Ayurved’s representatives, including yoga guru Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, to provide original newspaper pages containing the company’s public apology. Despite the company offering e-copies, the court insisted on originals.

Furthermore, the court excused Ramdev and Balkrishna from personal appearances at the next hearing.

Also Read: ‘Did it in excitement’, Ramdev on Patanjali ads 

The case

On 19 March, the apex court directed Ramdev and Balkrishna to appear before it after taking exception to the company’s failure to respond to the notice issued in the case relating to advertisements of the firm’s products and their medicinal efficacy.

The top court said it deemed it appropriate to issue a show cause notice to Ramdev as the advertisements issued by Patanjali, which were in the teeth of the undertaking given to the court on 21 November, 2023, reflected his endorsement.

The matter came up for hearing on Tuesday before a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

The bench told Balkrishna that they (Patanjali) were not so innocent that they didn’t know what the top court had said in its earlier orders in the case.

(Edited by Arkadev Ghoshal)