The Supreme Court today directed Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna to appear before it on next date for not replying to the show cause notice issued to him in contempt proceedings.

The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah took a strong exception to the failure of Patanjali and Balkrishna in filing replies to the Court's notices issued to them earlier to show why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for prima facie violating the undertaking given to the Court. The Bench also issued notice to Ramdev to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), whereby by an Order dated February 27, 2024, Patanjali was restrained from advertising or branding some of the products manufactured and marketed by it that are meant to address the ailments/diseases/conditions mentioned under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 and the Rules. The Court had issued notice to Balakrishna to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for contempt of court.

Senior Advocate P S Patwalia appeared for the Petitioner, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Patanjali, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj appeared for the Union of India.

During the hearing today, the Bench inquired, "Where is the reply?"

Rohatgi submitted, "I can file it; its a very short reply."

Justice Kholi said, "Its not good. Not good enough. We have taken very seriously." She warned, "If you're not filing it means that there will Orders and consequences that will follow. Why have you not filed it?"

Justice Amanullah said, "Mr. Rohatgi are you aware that you are the third person, on the third day, third Senior Counsel, have you been briefed of all what has happened. So that you take full responsibility as an officer of the Court and as a Senior Counsel."

To this, Rohatgi responded, "I am aware."

Justice Amanullah expressed displeasure and said, "You are tempting us Mr. Rohatgi. I am telling you, as a Senior Counsel I am telling you and take it from us. We are not going to be lashing whatever message it goes, whatever it takes. We are not bothered what is said."

Justice Kholi added, "Your client will appear on the next date now. It was our discretion not to summon him at that time."

Justice Amanullah said that now Ramdev will also be made a party to it.

The Bench said that Baba Ramdev and the MD of Patanjali, Acharya Balkrishna, were prima facie in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

The Court also pulled up the Union for filing the reply just a day before the hearing. "If you file it on the last day at your risk at your call. We are not going to permit any adjournment, if we do. We are going to impose Cost," it added.

Accordingly, the Court asked Baba Ramdev and Balakrishna to be appear before it on the next date.

Pertinently, on February 27, the Court had come down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved conglomerate for persistently disseminating alleged misleading claims and advertisements targeting modern systems of medicine and restrained it from advertising or branding some of the products manufactured and marketed by it that were meant to address the ailments/diseases/conditions mentioned under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 and the Rules. The Court had also expressed dissatisfaction with Patanjali Ayurved's ongoing promotion of such misleading information despite giving an assurance in November 2023.

On the earlier occasion, the Court had orally told Senior Advocate P S Patwalia, who appeared for the Petitioner that it is focused on the cause and on any individual. Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya had then requested that the part of the order where the Court says that the issue is confined to Patanjali be corrected to say that the matter is not confined to Patanjali. Justice Amanullah said that Patanjali's case will be used as a test case, something to begin with for the present and that the exercise will not be limited to Patanjali.

Also, previously, the bench had also expressed its reluctance to turn the matter into a debate of "Allopathy vs. Ayurveda".

Cause Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 645/2022]


Justice Hima KholiJustice Ahsanuddin Amaah

Sukriti Mishra