The Supreme Court has deferred its decision in a contempt of court case involving Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., yoga guru Baba Ramdev, and Acharya Balkrishna concerning misleading advertisements by the company. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah presided over the bench and exempted Patanjali Ayurved’s founders, Ramdev and Balkrishna, from appearing in person as per an earlier directive.
Additionally, the bench granted Patanjali three weeks to submit affidavits detailing the actions taken to retract misleading advertisements for Patanjali products, for which licenses have been suspended. Following the hearing, the bench emphasized the importance of informed decision-making by the public and urged Baba Ramdev to wield his influence judiciously.
During the proceedings, Justice Kohli responded to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s assertion regarding Ramdev’s contributions to yoga by highlighting the distinction between yoga and Patanjali products. The court was hearing a case filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against an alleged smear campaign by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and its founders against the Covid-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.
READ MORE : Report: Woman’s Kurkure Addiction Leads To Divorce Demand After Husband Forgets To Bring ₹5 Snack
Representatives for Patanjali informed the bench that the company has reached out to all platforms still running its advertisements and ceased the sale of banned products. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court admonished IMA President Dr. RV Asokan for commenting on the court’s orders in the case, expressing dissatisfaction with his affidavit tendering unconditional apology.
The bench rebuked Asokan, emphasizing the need for self-restraint, particularly in his capacity as IMA President. Asokan’s remarks in an interview following objections raised by the IMA against alleged unethical practices in prescribing expensive and unnecessary medicines prompted Patanjali to file an application against him, seeking judicial notice of his comments.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of speech and responsible conduct, underscoring the importance of exercising discretion and restraint, especially in matters concerning public health and professional ethics.
