Uttarakhand HC quashes summons against Patanjali, Baba Ramdev in misleading ads case
The State’s attempt to invoke earlier Supreme Court observations holding Ramdev and Balkrishna in contempt over similar misleading ads was dismissed by the High Court as irrelevant
ADVERTISEMENT
In a significant reprieve for Patanjali Ayurved, Divya Pharmacy, and their owners Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, the Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the summons issued to them by a Haridwar trial court. This is in connection with a complaint accusing them of publishing misleading advertisements, including those promoting the controversial product Coronil, reports Bar & Bench.
In a ruling delivered on June 3, Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma observed that the State had failed to product any expert report proving that the advertisements were false or misleading. "Merely writing letter to the petitioner firm that the advertisement should be removed without stating specifically that the claim made in the advertisements were false, does not give reasons to prosecute the petitioner firm, that too, when there is no report of experts about the falsity or of its being misleading," the Court stated in the report.
The High Court noted that to invoke offences under the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, there must be clear allegations explaining how the advertisements were false.
In the absence of such specific claims, Justice Sharma said, the trial court had no basis to summon the accused or take cognizance of the case.
The State's attempt to invoke earlier Supreme Court observations holding Ramdev and Balkrishna in contempt over similar misleading ads were dismissed by the High Court as irrelevant.
The original complaint, filed by the State government in 2023, accused the Patanjali group and its founders of committing 20 offences between 2022 and 2024. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in Haridwar took cognizance on April 16, 2024, and issued summons - an order that was subsequently challenged in the High Court.
During proceedings, the State counsel admitted that the complaint did not actually state how the promotional materials were false or misleading. Justice Sharma also pointed out that the trial court had failed to apply judicial mind while issuing the summons and made no reference to the evidence it relied upon.
Crucially, the Court held that thee limitation period for taking cognizance of most alleged offences - committed before April 15, 2023, had expired. “The impugned order of cognizance dated 16.04.2024 is bad in law and cannot be sustained,” the order read as per the report.
Further deficiencies included the absence of a Section 65B certificate - required to authenticate digital evidence - and the lack of connection between the 20 alleged offences, which were spread over more than two years. As such, the Court ruled that a composite cognizance order was not legally permissible, the report added.
