On April 10, the Supreme Court refused to accept the ‘unconditional’ apology offered by Patanjali Ayurved, Ramdev, and Balkrishna concerning their airing of misleading advertisements. The Court strongly criticized them for their perceived lack of seriousness towards the contempt of court proceedings. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, presiding over the bench, expressed their disapproval, stating, “We decline to accept your affidavit. We consider what you have done to be a willful, deliberate, repeated violation of our orders.”
In response to the misleading advertisements issued by Patanjali Ayurved, Ramdev, and Balkrishna, yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd’s managing director, Acharya Balkrishna, had submitted an ”unconditional and unqualified” apology to the Supreme Court on April 9. However, Justice Kohli remarked on the delayed submission of the apology, observing, “Till the matter hit the court, the contemnors did not find it fit to send us the (fresh apology) affidavits. They sent it to the media first; till 7.30 pm yesterday, it was not uploaded for us. They believe in publicity clearly.”
The Court raised doubts regarding the sincerity of the apology, questioning its authenticity in the face of their previous disregard for court orders. Justice Kohli emphasized, “Apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this; we consider it a deliberate violation of the undertaking.”
The Court further expressed its concerns about the alleged collusion between Patanjali and the state licensing authority and criticized the company’s promotional tactics, stating, “Indian public is as cognizant about alternate medication as it is about the treatment through allopathy.”
Despite the apology submitted by Ramdev and Balkrishna, the Court remained firm in its stance, indicating that their actions may have consequences beyond the rejection of their affidavits. This development follows the Court’s earlier refusal to accept their apology as ”lip service” on April 2, where it also questioned the government’s handling of Patanjali’s claims and its derogatory remarks against allopathy during the Covid peak.
