Ramdev, Balakrishna cited non exiting flight ticket to avoid personal appearance, rejects affidavit: Supreme Court

The bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah refused to accept the latest affidavit.

“We have expressed our reservations about accepting the latest affidavit filed. We have also pointed out that even after show cause notices, the proposed contemnors attempted to wriggle out of physical appearance. The fact remains that when affidavits were sworn there were no such tickets existing and this shows they were trying to wriggle out of the situation which is most unacceptable,” said Justice Kohli.

Also Read: Supreme Court asks Ramdev, Balkrishna to appear before it

The case

Ramdev and Balkrishna tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” before the apex court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products.

In two separate affidavits filed in the apex court, they tendered an unqualified apology for the “breach of the statement” recorded in its 21 November,2023 order.

In the order, the top court had noted that counsel representing Patanjali Ayurved had assured it that “henceforth there shall not be any violation of any law(s), especially relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it and, further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form”.

The top court had said Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is “bound down to such assurance”.

The non-observance of the specific assurance and the subsequent media statements irked the apex court, which later issued notice to them to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

Also Read: Meet Dr KV Babu, whose RTI crusade led to SC’s rebuke of Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali

The role of state FDA

Coming heavily on Uttarakhand Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), the apex court said that they are appalled by the action of the state licensing authority and it showed nothing apart from a clear attempt to push the files to delay the matter.

“The state licensing authority remained in deep slumber and the person who holds the position of the joint director has been holding the post for nine months and it is enough to be aware of the matter. The predecessor is also complicit in the case and he is yet to file an affidavit explaining the conduct on his part when misleading ads were being given by Divya Pharmacy in violation of the act. The disdain shown by Divya Pharmacy to the warnings of state authority is apparent from the tone and tenor of the reply,” observed the court.

Divya Pharmacy, a subsidiary of Patanjali stated that the advertisement was to keep people connected with Ayurveda and that it was only suggestive.

“This is in the teeth of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act,” said the court.

The Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 prohibits the advertisement of drugs that suggest or lead to the use of drugs for diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of specific diseases or disorders.

“The reply is as if if this court does not step in then state authority can abdicate its duty. Besides the first contemnors, we could issue contempt notice to the present deponent of the affidavit Dr Mithilesh Kumar (joint Director Uttarakhand FDA) and his predecessor. However as of now, we ask the predecessor to file an affidavit explaining his conduct in the three years he held the post,” said the court.