The Supreme Court of India firmly dismissed the apologies filed by Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna regarding the company’s misleading advertisements, stating, “we don’t want to be so generous in this case.”
Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed their skepticism towards the sincerity of the apologies, questioning why the court should not treat them with the same disdain as the earlier court undertaking.
The bench emphasized that the apologies seemed insincere and insufficient to rectify the deliberate violations of the court’s orders. They remarked, “The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall…We decline to accept your affidavit. We consider what you have done to be wilful, deliberate, repeated violation of our orders.”
The court also criticized the Centre’s response to the matter and raised concerns about the timing and manner in which the apologies were submitted. They noted that Ramdev and Balkrishna sent their apologies to the media before sending them to the court, indicating a preference for publicity over genuine remorse. The court expressed disappointment in this approach, highlighting the need for sincerity and accountability.
Furthermore, the Apex Court admonished the Uttarakhand government for its inaction against Patanjali Ayurved for violating the law. They reprimanded the government for failing to take decisive action despite receiving complaints and called for the immediate suspension of the officers responsible for negligence.
The Supreme Court is currently addressing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), alleging a smear campaign against the vaccination drive and modern medicines. The court’s stern stance reflects its commitment to upholding accountability and integrity in advertising practices and ensuring public trust in healthcare initiatives.
Here are some key remarks made by the Supreme Court regarding the Patanjali case:
1) The Uttarakhand licensing authority displayed a lack of action and merely shuffled paperwork, demonstrating collusion with the contemners.
2) Authorities have played with people’s lives while dealing with essential matters.
3) The State Licensing Authority remained inactive for years, neglecting its duties and acting passively.
4) The court expressed strong objection to labelling the officers as ‘bona fide,’ asserting they will be thoroughly scrutinised.
5) The court dismissed the apology as insincere and insufficient to rectify the violations.
6) Mere apologies are not adequate; consequences must be faced for disregarding the court’s orders.
7) Patanjali’s actions affected countless innocent people, not just one individual seeking leniency. Patanjali’s MD and Ramdev attempted to evade personal appearance in court by falsely claiming to be traveling abroad.
