Baba Ramdev seems to have found himself in a bind again. He and the co-founder of Patanjali Ayurved—managing director Acharya Balkrishna—were given some stick by the country’s apex court on Tuesday. The Supreme Court has charged the company for contempt for defying its orders on publishing misleading advertisements.

“Not just the Supreme Court, every order passed by the courts across this country has to be respected. This is absolute defiance,” a bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted, adding, “Be ready for action.”

The Supreme Court’s contempt case stems from a petition lodged by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali's advertisements last year. The ads attacked allopathy and allegedly propagated unsubstantiated claims about Patanjali’s products curing ailments such as COVID-19, diabetes, blood pressure and depression. Again, there was no clinical evidence supporting these assertions.

In November last year, the Supreme Court had issued a strict warning and ordered the supplement seller to refrain from its “false advertisements.” But despite assurances to the court, Patanjali did not stop. Last month, a two-judge SC bench issued the company a contempt notice and banned it from advertising any product that claims to cure diseases. Besides the contempt notice, the SC also asked the company to file an affidavit explaining how it has tackled misleading advertisements. For more details about the February hearing, read this edition.

By Tuesday, the Supreme Court had clearly had enough. Despite Balakrishna and Ramdev apologizing, the top court refused to accept it outright.

None spared: Not just Patanjali, the SC also took the Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) Ministry to task for inaction against Patanjali’s advertisements. The court said that the ministry should have made it clear that ayurvedic products are not intended to replace allopathic treatment and criticized the government for not acting against Patanjali despite its attempts to undermine modern medicine.

“Because the contemnors were going to town saying that this is the answer and the cure and there is nothing available in modern science that can address it (COVID-19). And they were aware of the fact that they were cautioned to not do that. We are assuming even if you did not put it in the public domain, at least you told them that it is nothing more than a supplement, do not tom-tom it as a cure. Still, you chose to keep your eyes shut. We are wondering why the Union of India did it?” the bench said.

The bench also chastised Balkrishna for trying to pass the buck to the company’s media department—he claimed that this department was not aware of the top court’s order.

“We are not willing to accept such an explanation… Your media department is not a standalone island in your office is it…that it wouldn’t know what is happening in the court proceedings? And proceedings of such a serious nature. So your apology is not persuading this court really to accept it. We think it’s more of a lip service,” Justice Kohli said.

The biggest pain point for Patanjali in this case is the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, which forbids misleading advertisements regarding certain diseases.

The Act in focus: In its February order, the SC had prohibited Patanjali from advertising products for any ailments listed in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The act explicitly prohibits advertising cures for 54 specified diseases. These include cures for disorders of the nervous system, menstrual flow and optical system, epilepsy, bladder stones, heart diseases, blood pressure, obesity and tubercolosis, among others.

Several of Patanjali’s products claim to cure these even now—a quick look at the company’s website proves this.

It regulates drug advertisements—in written, oral and visual mediums—and prohibits claims of magical properties in remedies. The act defines “drug” as medicines for human or animal use, diagnostic substances and items affecting body functions. Talismans, mantras and charms that claim to heal or influence bodily functions can also be deemed as “magic remedies”. Violations can lead to imprisonment or fines.

Everyone involved in ad publication—from manufacturers, distributors, advertisers, and company directors and managers—can be held liable if they were aware of or ignored the violation.

The act was in the spotlight again in Tuesday’s hearing because Balkrishna’s apology to the court said that the law was “in an archaic state” and passed during a time when scientific evidence in Ayurveda research was insufficient.

But the bench was not pleased with this and called criticism of the act nothing but defiance by Patanjali:

“Even today, one of the statements made by you in your so-called unqualified apology is that the Act itself is archaic. So shall we assume that every Act which is archaic shall not be implemented or enforced in law? An Act remains an enactment, which has to be enforced as a law of the land till it remains on the statute book,” the bench said.

Defending their stance, Patanjali’s representative contended that the act was passed in 1954, and claimed that the company has conducted its own trials and science too has progressed far ahead since then. But the bench had harsh words in response:

“Do you think you can write anything for an apology and get away with it? We are not so magnanimous, especially in contempt cases,” Justice Amanullah said. “Be prepared for all consequences.”

It remains to be seen whether Patanjali will face perjury proceedings or strictly rein in its claims.

Also read: