Home News Supreme Court Unimpressed by IMA Chief’s Apology in Patanjali Ads Case

Supreme Court Unimpressed by IMA Chief’s Apology in Patanjali Ads Case


The Supreme Court has reserved its decision on the contempt notice issued to yoga guru Ramdev, his associate Balkrishna, and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd regarding misleading advertisements. Additionally, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the apology offered by the president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Dr. RV Asokan, over his comments in a media interview concerning certain court observations.

Supreme Court Unimpressed by IMA Chief's Apology in Patanjali Ads Case

A bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dispensed with Ramdev and Balkrishna’s personal appearance and granted Patanjali three weeks to submit affidavits detailing the measures taken to recall misleading ads for their products, whose licenses have been suspended.

While reserving orders in the contempt case, the bench remarked, “Public is cognizant, if they have choices they make well-informed choices… Baba Ramdev has a lot of influence, use it in the right way.”

The Supreme Court was addressing a case filed by the IMA against an alleged smear campaign by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and its founders against the Covid-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine. Dr. Asokan faced criticism for providing press interviews on the Supreme Court’s orders in the case, leading the Court to question his actions.

“We are the first ones to uphold the freedom of free speech. But there are times when there should be self-restraint. As IMA President, you should have had self-restraint. That’s the point. We didn’t see that in your interviews,” the bench remarked to Dr. Asokan, urging him to exercise caution in public statements.

In response to Asokan’s comments, the bench highlighted the need for responsible discourse, emphasizing that public figures must demonstrate restraint in their remarks. The Court noted that while they possess the authority to take action, they exercise discretion with a sense of responsibility.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the case underscores the significance of maintaining decorum and respect for judicial processes in public discourse.