Director’s Remarks Anger Supreme Court: “Be Prepared…

The bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanulla commended the marked improvement in the situation. They acknowledged the presence of names beyond just Patanjali and expressed their appreciation for it. The court examined the public apology issued by Patanjali Ayurved and requested Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to provide the original newspaper pages on which the apology was published. Additionally, the bench expressed strong disapproval of comments made by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) President RV Asokan in an interview with the news agency PTI, prompting Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi to bring the interview on record.

The bench directed Mukul Rohatgi to provide the IMA Director’s interview with PTI on record and emphasized that the consequences could be more serious. It also questioned the IMA’s counsel, stating that the organization had not covered itself with glory. The text also mentions an interview with IMA President RV Asokan, where he expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s criticism of the IMA and private doctors’ practices and remarked that the court’s observation did not coincide with the issue before them. The court had also criticized the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for inaction in the case and expressed dissatisfaction with their explanation.

The court noted that the licensing authority took action in accordance with the law only after the Supreme Court’s April 10 order. The case began in November last year when the Supreme Court, prompted by a petition filed by the IMA, cautioned Patanjali Ayurved against making “false” and “misleading” claims in advertisements about its medicines. The court had directed Patanjali Ayurved to stop all electronic and print advertisements of its medicines with immediate effect on April 10. This direction had followed criticism of the licensing authority for not taking action against Patanjali for so long.

The IMA had referred to several advertisements that allegedly portrayed allopathy and doctors in a negative light, and had also accused firms producing ayurvedic medicines of making disparaging statements to mislead the public.