Patanjali misleading ads case: Top court urges Ramdev to wield influence responsibly; slams IMA chief

The Supreme Court stated on Tuesday that yoga guru Ramdev has "a lot of influence" and should "use it in the right way" during a hearing on the misleading Patanjali advertisements case. Additionally, the court postponedmaking a decision inthe contempt proceedings brought against Ramdev, the company, and his aide Acharya Balkrishna.

Judge Hima Kohil agreed with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assessment that Ramdev has made significant contributions to yoga, but he also said, "What has been done for yoga is good, but Patanjali products are another matter." The company was accused of contempt for the misleading ads it ran.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also ruled that Ramdev and Balkrishna, the founders of Patanjali Ayurveda, should not appear in person. Patanjali was also given three weeks to provide affidavits outlining the efforts done to recall misleading advertisements for Patanjali products for which licenses had been suspended.

The Supreme Court was hearing a lawsuit brought by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) challenging an alleged smear campaign launched by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and its founders against theCovid-19vaccine effort and modern medicine. Counsels for Patanjali informed the bench that the company had written to all platforms that were still carrying its adverts and that the sale of prohibited items had been stopped.

Supreme Court slams IMA

The Supreme Court summoned Dr. R V Asokan, chief of the Indian Medical Association, for his disparaging remarks on court proceedings.

Justice Kohli criticised the IMA president for his accusations against the court, saying, "You do exactly the same thing Patanjali did. You are not a layman, don't you know the consequences of such things? You can't sit on your couch lamenting the order of the court.”

"We are the firstoneto uphold the freedom of free speech. But there are times when there should beself restraint. As IMA President, you should have hadself restraint. That's the point. We didn't see that in your interviews," said the bench.

"Dr. Asokan, you are also a citizen of this country. The amount of criticism judges face, why don't they react? Becausepersonallywe don't have much of an ego, we are magnanimous. We are entitled to take action, but very rarely we do. We seldom do that... We use our discretion with some sense of responsibility. But that does not mean you go to town withthese kindof comments," the SC bench told Ashokan.

(With inputs from agencies)