MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Monday, 23 December 2024

Patanjali ads case: Supreme Court summons Ramdev for not replying to contempt notices

The ads, promoting herbal products as permanent cure for incurable diseases, had continued to appear in the media despite a Supreme Court order on November 21, 2023, asking Patanjali not to do so

R. Balaji New Delhi Published 20.03.24, 05:10 AM
Ramdev.

Ramdev. File picture

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the personal presence of yoga practitioner Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurveda managing director Acharya Balkrishna for failing to reply to contempt notices relating to illegal advertisements.

The ads, promoting herbal products as permanent cure for incurable diseases, had continued to appear in the media despite a Supreme Court order on November 21, 2023, asking Patanjali not to do so. The court had during a hearing on February 27 said “the entire country is being taken for a ride and the government is sitting with its eyes shut”.

ADVERTISEMENT

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah on Tuesday held that Ramdev and Balkrishna had “prima facie” defied the 2023 directions of the apex court not to publish ads projecting Patanjali herbal products as cure for incurable diseases.

“On the last date of hearing, notice to show cause was issued to respondent No. 5 (Ramdev) and its managing director — Acharya Balkrishna (respondent No. 6) as to why contempt of court proceedings be not initiated against them for violating the order dated 21st November, 2023. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid respondent, a period of two weeks was granted to file a reply. The reply is not on record,” the bench said.

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct the presence of... Acharya Balkrishna on the next date of hearing. Further, having gone through the advertisements issued by respondent No. 5 in the teeth of the undertaking given to this Court on 21st November, 2023, and on noticing that the said advertisements reflect an endorsement thereof by Baba Ramdev, it is deemed appropriate to issue notice to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against him as this Court is prima facie of the opinion that he too has violated the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act read with Rule 6 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Rules…”

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT