The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the founders of Patanjali Ayurved, Yoga guru Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna in a contempt case related to airing of misleading medical advertisements.
The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanudding Amanullah refused to accept the second affidavit filed by Acharya Balkrishna, in which he expressed unconditional and unqualified apology for airing the advertisements in breach of an undertaking given to the Court in November last year.
The Apex Court refused to accept the apology on the grounds that the affidavit was merely “on paper” and warned that the proposed contemnors should be ready to face penal action for violation of the undertaking.
The Bench told Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Patanjali founders, that the apology was only on paper. Their back was against the wall.
Considering it a deliberate violation of undertaking, the top court of the country warned the contemnors to be ready for something next to rejection of affidavit. To this, Rohatgi said that people made mistakes.
The Bench retorted that they (such people) should then suffer.
Stating that it did not want to be generous in this case, the Apex Court asked why the apology should not be treated with the same disdain, as was shown by the company to the court undertaking.
The Bench said it was not convinced by the affidavit and turned it down. It also issued summons to both Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.
Rohatgi contended during the hearing that the contemnors were prepared to issue a public apology. However, the Apex Court refused to grant indulgence.
During the course of hearing, the top court of the country commented that both the Patanjali MD and Baba Ramdev tried to evade personal appearance before the Court by making false claims of travel abroad.
After show-cause notices were issued, they attempted to ‘wriggle out’ of their personal presence by moving applications seeking exemption on the ground that they were travelling abroad. To demonstrate the said fact, affidavits were filed by them, referring to certain flight tickets, which were produced as annexures.
The Apex Court observed that though the applications were filed on March 30, the flight tickets produced as annexures were dated March 31. The concerned lawyer was confronted with this fact during the earlier hearing.
In the latest affidavits, Balkrishna and Ramdev admitted that the tickets were issued on a day after the affidavits were sworn and explained that at the time of filing of the affidavit, the photocopies of the tickets were annexed.
The Apex Court also came down heavily on the Uttarakhand government for its failure to take legal action against Patanjali and its subsidiary Divya Pharmacy.
It asked why it should not think that the Uttarakhand authorities were ‘hands-in-glove’ with Patanjali/Divya Pharmacy.
The Bench further remarked that it was ‘appalled’ to note that apart from ‘pushing’ the file, the State Licensing Authorities did nothing and were merely trying to ‘pass’ on the buck to somehow ‘delay’ the matter.
It said the State Licensing Authority was equally ‘complicit’ due to its inaction against the Divya Pharmacy despite having information about their advertisements violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
The Bench said it was refraining from issuing contempt notices to other officers and directed all officers holding the post of Joint Director of the State Licensing Authority, Haridwar between 2018 till date, to file affidavits explaining inaction on their part.
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appeared for the petitioner.
The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Balbir Singh, Vipin Sanghi and Dhruv Mehta; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; ASG KM Nataraj, and AoR Vanshaja Shukla.