Director’s Remarks Irk Supreme Court: Top Medical Body’s Chief Advises Being Prepared

The bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanulla expressed their appreciation for the marked improvement, noting that there were previously only references to Patanjali, but now other names have been included. The court asked Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to provide the original pages of each newspaper where the public apology was published. The court also expressed stern disapproval of the comments made by Indian Medical Association (IMA) President RV Asokan in an interview.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali Ayurved in court, brought these remarks to the attention of the bench and was asked to present the interview on record. The court criticized the IMA President’s remarks to the news agency PTI, stating that it was “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court criticized the IMA and the practices of private doctors. The bench also expressed dissatisfaction with the explanations offered by the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority and observed that they only took action in response to the court’s orders.

The case began in November last year when the Supreme Court, while hearing 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 giving misleading information and had criticized the licensing authority for not acting against Patanjali earlier.