Patanjali Ayurved vs Supreme Court: A timeline of the misleading ads case
Here's a timeline of all that has happened in Patanjali Ayurved's misleading ads case.
On November 22 last year, The Supreme Court issued a warning to Baba Ramdev's Patanjali Ayurved, for publishing misleading claims and ads against modern systems of medicine.
Responding to a petition from the Indian Medical Association (IMA) challenging deceptive advertising practices, the court said it could impose fines of up to Rs. 1 crore on each product if a false claim is made regarding its ability to 'cure' a specific disease,
The issue began when Patanjali Ayurved began advertising their ‘Coronil’ medicine as a cure for Covid-19.
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasised that the issue could not be reduced to a debate between modern medicine and Ayurvedic products, and instructed Patanjali Ayurved to immediately halt all false and misleading ads.
In addition to addressing Patanjali's advertising practices, the SC asked the Union to tackle misleading medical ads and come up with a proposal of suitable recommendations after consultations in the next hearing, scheduled for February 5, 2024.
IMA argued that Patanjali's unverified claims violate laws such as the Drugs & Other Magic Remedies Act, 1954, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Despite the Ministry of AYUSH's memorandum of understanding with the Advertising Standards Council of India for monitoring misleading advertisements of AYUSH drugs, Patanjali allegedly continued to violate the law with impunity, according to the petition.
On November 23, the SC issued a stern warning to Patanjali Ayurved for misleading claims and ads against modern systems of medicine, the company said it was not making any "false advertisements or propaganda" regarding its products.
The company went on to say that it would not object if the Court were to impose a fine or "even give us a death sentence" if found making misleading claims.
Amidst the ongoing case, Storyboard18 reported on January 12 this year that Anita Nayyar, who led Patanjali Ayurved as COO - media, branding and communication, had moved on from the company.
On February 27, Patanjali Ayurved and its managing director Acharya Balakrishnan were held in contempt by the Supreme Court. The SC issued them the notice for violating its previously passed order against misleading advertising that talked about being able to cure serious diseases or makes claims against allopathy, etc.
Apart from issuing notice, the SC also temporarily restricted Patanjali Ayurved from advertising anything that claimed to cure diseases like illnesses such as blood pressure, diabetes, fevers, epilepsy and lupus, specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.
“Respondents are restrained from advertising and branding of their marketed medicinal products specified as treating diseases/ailments as in the rules, until further orders. They are cautioned from making any statements adverse to any medicine system in any form in print or other media,” said a division bench chaired by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
“The entire country is taken for a ride!,” and the government is "sitting with its eyes closed,” he added.
“Today, I am going to pass a really strict order. You flouted this order! You had the courage and guts to come up with this advertisement after the order of this Court! And then you come up with this advertisement. Permanent relief, what do you mean by permanent relief? Is it a cure?...we are going to pass a very, very strict order. You are tempting the Court,” the Justice added.
On March 19, the SC summoned Ramdev and Balakrishna for their non-response to the contempt notice.
The company formally expressed regret to the SC on March 21m in response to a notice prompting it to justify why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated for allegedly breaching an assurance provided to the top court on November 21, 2023.
In the affidavit filed in response to the notice, Balkrishna said they ‘regrets that the advertisement in question which was meant to contain only general statements inadvertently included the offending sentences’.
They also said that they will ensure that such advertisements are not issued in the future.
The affidavit also said that Schedule J of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 read with Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1955 is in an archaic state and the last changes were introduced in 1996.
“Company now possesses evidence-based scientific data with clinical research conducted in Ayurveda, which would demonstrate the advances made through scientific research in the context of diseases mentioned in the said schedule,” the affidavit added.
On April 2, Ramdev and Balakrishna appeared in Court. The SC came down heavily on Patanjali for defying its orders and observed that the medical advertisements issued by the Ramdev-led company are in the "teeth of law".
'Be ready for action', the Supreme Court told Ramdev, stating that the court would need to take contempt cases to the logical conclusion.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also refused to accept the apology tendered by Patanjali in March. "We are not happy with your apology," the top court said, giving the company one last opportunity to file a 'better' response in its contempt proceedings. The case will be next heard on April 10.
The apex court also held the government responsible, saying again that the government chose to shut its eyes and asked the Centre for explanation over why action was not taken against claims made against allopathy during the pandemic.
On April 8, it was reported that the Uttarakhand state licensing authority had delayed action for more than two years based on complaints about Patanjali’s misleading ads.
The SLA said that since the matter was with the Supreme Court, any action against Patanjali will be a result of the judgement passed by the Court. However, the SC said that it had not given any instruction to wait for judgement to take action.
The Ayush ministry filed an affidavit in the court which showed that the SLA had taken no action for two years other than giving warnings that asked the company to stop showcasing its advertisements. However, Patanjali continued to display ads even after the warnings for two years.
Ramdev and Balakrishna filed a fresh affidavit in the Supreme Court, extending an "unconditional and unqualified apology" on April 9.
However on April 10, the SC rejected the second affidavit of apology submitted by Patanjali and the bench warned them to be ready to face action in the contempt case.
Justice Kohli said, "Why should we not treat your apology with the same disdain as shown to the court undertaking? We are not convinced... Now a message must go to society."
"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... They believe in publicity clearly," Justice Kohli said, as per reports from the court proceedings.
The SC also pulled up Uttarakhand drug authorities, asking why no action was taken against the violations and despite clear mention of 'suggestive nature' of content in Patanjali Ayurved's advertising for its products.
On April 16, Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Patanjali and Ramdev told the Court, "I am willing to give a public apology…., We claim that we have an alternative system of medicine.”
The bench said that they were not convinced of the plea and asked Ramdev and Balakrishna to appear once again before the court at the next hearing of the case on April 23.
At the next hearing, the Court asked the company if the public apology that was published by them in the newspapers on April 22, was “as big as their advertisements.”
The bench also asked why the apologies were filed the day before the hearing and not earlier. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev and Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, said that the apology was published in a total of 67 newspapers and cost around Rs. 10 lakh.
Justice Hima Kohli asked, ”Has the apology been published prominently? Same font and size as your earlier advertisements?” To this, Rohatgi said that they had spent lakhs on publishing the apologies. The court replied saying, "We are not bothered.”
The Supreme Court also mentioned that they received an application asking for a Rs. 1000 crore fine against the Indian Medical Association (IMA) for its case against Patanjali. In reply, Rohatgi informed the court that his clients had nothing to do with it.
The court adjourned the matter for another week after Ramdev informed the court that he will issue a larger apology in newspapers.
The company on April 24, put out a bigger apology in leading newspapers.
“In the wake of the ongoing matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we in our individual capacity as well as on behalf of the Company, unconditionally apologise for the non-compliance or disobedience of directions/orders of the Supreme Court of India,” the apology read.
“We unconditionally extend the apology for holding meeting/press conference dated 22.11.2023. We earnestly apologise for the mistake made in publishing our advertisements and it is our wholehearted commitment that such errors will not be repeated. We undertake to abide by directions and instructions of the Hon’ble Court with due care and utmost sincerity. We undertake to uphold the majesty of the Court and comply with applicable laws and directions of the Hon’ble Court of law/relevant authorities,” it added.
